2015-11-24
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — While the purpose of the bill might be to buy out licences, the second-reading speech and whole thrust of the legislation is purported to be to improve opportunities for recreational fishers. This is even referred to quite extensively in the second-reading speech, so I would like to address a few issues there. It may be that we can deal with one or two other matters on the mechanics of the bill without necessarily having to go to every individual clause one by one, because I think my questions are in some cases general but in some cases specific. They may be about why certain approaches have been adopted as opposed to certain other approaches, rather than necessarily the mechanics of the bill's operation.
The question I think I have pursued with the minister a couple of times now is: is this a sustainable fishery? If the total biomass and diversity of species is sustainable, then we would not necessarily expect a larger fishery as a result of buying out one part of it. It could be that the fishery is growing; it could be that the fishery is declining. The information I have read on the government's own website seems to suggest that this is a sustainable fishery, and I just want the minister to confirm whether there are any concerns about it being overfished by the sum total of both recreational and commercial fishers.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — But of that 650 tonne that is going to be reduced to 88 tonne, is it not the case that a large proportion of the fish that are caught by netting in Port Phillip Bay now are actually species such as sardines and anchovies, which are not even being caught on lines by recreational fishers, and therefore by reducing that take you are not actually creating any extra fish that people will want to catch, in the example of your family at Rye?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — So you are reducing it from 650 tonne, and at the moment my information is that about 28 per cent of that is sardines, but they will not be of any benefit. So why have we not got a measure before us that actually seeks to preserve those other species that anglers are not interested in, rather than in fact bringing in an 88-tonne longline fishery that targets specifically those species that recreational anglers are interested in?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — This is a whole new argument that I have never heard before. Apparently there is an entire ecosystem dynamic that is expected to go on here. We could be here for quite some time discussing the scientific basis of that. We can talk about the scientific basis, or the body of knowledge that is in place now. But the minister briefly mentioned the economic value. Of course we have heard many figures quoted on the economic value of the current and potential recreational fishing. Does the minister have a figure on the current economic value of the commercial fishing that we are seeking to abolish tonight?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — What aspect of the industry value chain has been examined in order to create that figure of $4 million?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — At which point in the value chain?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Okay, but what about at the point where it has actually been lightly poached in a garlic and lemon sauce and served up to someone sitting in a Southbank restaurant? Is that not the more appropriate end of the exercise at which to measure the total economic value of a commercial fishery?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I think it is not exactly apples and oranges because we cannot really compare the landed value of a recreational fish, and yet we are using that assessment. I understand what the minister says about the amount of fish coming out of Port Phillip Bay and consumed in Victoria, but another comparison involves our own fishery in Victorian waters, the bit that we manage. My figures on that are that just under 5000 tonnes are caught commercially in Victorian waters and that 13 per cent of all those fish are caught from Port Phillip Bay. Therefore, when we go further into it fish by fish, or species by species, we actually find that 89 per cent of snapper caught in Victorian waters are from Port Phillip Bay and more than 50 per cent of the King George whiting caught in Victorian waters is from Port Phillip Bay. I understand the minister's choice of comparisons. She is talking about all the fish we eat, but I am talking about all the fish that we manage — that we, the Victorian jurisdiction, are responsible for. We cannot be responsible for the quality or quantity or sustainability of fish caught in commonwealth waters or in Vietnam or Chile or all the rest of it — hence the focus on our local, sustainable fishery.
. The representations I have had from one of the recreational fishing lobbies is that commercial fishers are causing — and I think I quote them correctly — temporary localised depletion. The minister's claim in the second-reading speech is that there will be increased catch rates and the size of fish. I ask the minister which of those two things is the real rationale for this legislation? If it is about temporary localised depletion, there could be a range of measures that we could put in place to create fairer shares. If it is somehow going to increase both the catch rate and the size of the fish, then there is a big gap to be closed between the two particular rationales. What science does the minister have to demonstrate that there will be increases in both the catch rate and the size of fish?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — But the minister admitted that a lot of those tonnes are in fact anchovies. Is the claim now that as a result of getting rid of the anchovy fishery these snapper will be better fed and bigger? There needs to be some kind of fishery management science behind this, not simply a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Let us talk about snapper for a minute. There is a 600-something tonne fishery, as the minister referred to, and at the moment my figures are that about 20 per cent of that is snapper. Yet we are told that there will be eight licences of 11 tonnes per annum, so 88 tonnes of snapper will still be being caught. So in fact for the species that is most often mentioned here it is not going to be of much benefit, because the longline fishery will still continue anyway.
Just on those licences, what evidence has the minister's department brought forward that in fact those will be viable longline licences, given that we are talking about eight of them, each collecting 11 tonnes, which would seem to imply a fairly substantial amount of resources — that is, capital resources for the business — for a fairly small amount of fish? Is there evidence that these will in fact be viable licences that someone wants to take up?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I thank the minister for the description of the process; I am sure applicants will appreciate that information. My question was more about what evidence is being brought forward that an 11-tonne maximum longline fishery licence will in fact be a viable economic proposition for someone to operate as a business.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Just on that subject, why are we not using the original compensation provisions from the act as they stand? Why are we creating a new form of compensation provision with this bill?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Let us stay on compensation for a minute. The minister has already taken a number of measures without legislation to restrict the capacity of some of these people to keep fishing. Can she tell me why those measures have been taken in that way?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Yes.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — There are some who could argue that a catch cap as well as some voluntary buyouts could have been a compromised position that we could have adopted here. I am just interested in the use of these instruments outside legislation. The reason I ask is that I am now getting representations from commercial pipi harvesters from western Victoria who have not had their licences cancelled or had those sorts of restrictions they find burdensome but nevertheless have been told that under parks legislation they can no longer drive on the beach, which has made it extraordinarily difficult for them to continue their businesses. Can the minister assure us that the government will not be using a whole range of other instruments outside of Parliament to set about constraining people's fishing licences such that they almost become useless without the necessity of going through the compensation provisions that we have had here today?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — This will possibly be my final question. A significant proportion of this commercial netting harvest is of small fish that is then used and sold as bait to recreational fishers. Is there any concern that from buying out people who net in this way there will actually be problems then accessing some of the bait that is used in recreational fishing, or even that that will have to be brought in from further afield?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I just want to clarify something. Obviously the Greens have opposed the buyout. Is it clear from the mover of this amendment that this is designed to make the buyout happen even sooner?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — In that case I have a question for the minister. If all the elements of this package are interrelated — and there is a whole range of different questions here, from asset values to taxation treatment and options to exit the industry at various times — would the insertion of this amendment not have a whole series of ripple effects through these other negotiations that the minister has been engaged in?
To access full speeches and debates please visit http://hansard.parliament.vic.gov.au/isysadvsearch.html where you can search Victorian Hansard publications from 1991 onwards.