2016-10-27
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — One of the promises from the Target One Million policy is to undertake a statewide recreational catch survey. Getting data from these voluntary angler diaries that we get now is not a reliable way to get information on the overall size of catch, although it is a reasonable way to get data on trends and recruitment to the fishery. The best data in Port Phillip Bay always comes from commercial fishing, which has been phased out. Does the government propose to estimate the annual recreational fish take; if so, how, now that we have got no commercial fishing, is it going to get data? And if that survey has already commenced, please let us know.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — So this authority is the new regulator replacing the old regulator. What does the minister know about the rumours that I have heard that fishers are being bussed into Sorrento pier to catch fish — apparently recreational fishers — but the fish is then being provided to the Springvale market?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — It is in relation to the powers of the authority of the new regulator. If a black market for fish that are caught recreationally and then sold commercially is occurring now and the old regulator is not doing anything about it, then what new powers will the new regulator have in order to take action on this ongoing issue?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — So in line with those principles, Minister, through you, Deputy President, because someone will have to interpret this in recommending policy to you or a future minister, how does one determine equity between not just different classes of fishers — commercial, Aboriginal, recreational — but also people who do not own the boats and tackle or have the capacity to go out and get their own fish and rely on commercial fishing operations to supply them with fresh Victorian fish?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — The question is: how will this principle that you are inserting and creating for your new entity be applied in relation to the particular question, which goes to people who want to go out and catch their own fish versus people who would want to buy fish and therefore get that through a commercial operator?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Here, Minister, you create another principle, which is the principle of an evidence-based approach, which of course, like equity, like community participation and like all the other principles, we would agree with. But the question arises as to how the principle is to be met. If I could just read you a little bit from a recent Auditor-General report into the management of freshwater fisheries. I am sure your department has briefed you on this one, but I will read a little bit of it anyway. They say:
A significant proportion of DPI's research projects are focused on fishery productivity and fishing outcomes. While this research is best practice, it is not balanced with research efforts to improve ecological, habitat and ecosystem information and data. DPI contends that some of this research is the responsibility of others, but there is no evidence of whether DPI is obtaining or using this information in its planning activities.
So is it not the case that your new agency will ignore the evidence-based approach principle by simply failing to collect evidence apart from the evidence that it is interested in, which is how to promote recreational fishing?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Minister, that is in fact what worries me. We are creating a new agency with a new principle of an evidence-based approach and you are saying that nothing is going to change. I hope that there would be a change and that with a new principle for them to apply they will start collecting the necessary evidence. Previously you were regaling us with some of your stories about the fun you had had in getting involved with fish stocking activities, so let me just read a little bit of what the Auditor-General had to say about that:
Stocking activities have intended and unintended impacts. In terms of intended consequences, DPI's annual stocking program regularly exceeds short-term targets set for improved recreational fishing opportunities as determined by catch and effort data. One-off monitoring programs have also demonstrated that stocking programs have restored depleted recreational freshwater fisheries …
DPI has a framework to manage a range of unintended potential ecological and habitat impacts associated with its stocking program. This framework is considered better practice by other state fishery managers. However, there are gaps in its implementation. For example, despite the significant conservation and environmental value of some of the areas that are stocked, the impacts of stocking activities on non-target fish species, fishery habitats and supporting ecological processes are not adequately assessed.
So, Minister, now that you have introduced this new principle, the principle of evidence-based approach, does that mean the new agency will be required to actually go out and measure some of these significant impacts that the Auditor-General says are not currently adequately assessed?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr Barber — I am a recreational fisher, thank you.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I guess this will be a quick question along the same lines. Here we have the principle of stakeholder engagement. Commercial fishing was instrumental in the development of some regional towns — Lakes Entrance, Port Welshpool, Apollo Bay, Port Fairy — and remains important. How is the government going to guarantee that the views of commercial fishers are given equal weight to the recreational fishing industry, albeit that they do not have the same voting numbers?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Like out there in the world. We have got a broad principle here called stakeholder engagement and community participation, so I am referring to the community. Who does the government think is a stakeholder and how are they going to ensure that stakeholders get equal weight under this principle?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Does the department currently engage with consumers who wish to buy locally caught wild fish?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — So is that going to change under the new legislation? That is my question. Are consumers of fish stakeholders for the purpose of this principle?
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — First of all, this is a curious clause. Subclause (1) of clause 22 provides that in appointing directors to the board a range of skills is sought, most of which would be common to any board and then a number that relate specifically to fisheries management.
Then we have subclause (2), and I will just read the relevant bit:
The Minister must not appoint a person to the Board unless the Minister is satisfied that the person—
…
(b) is not, at the time of appointment—
(i) the holder of a current commercial fishery licence or aquaculture licence; or
(ii) associated with a person or entity who is the holder of a current commercial fishery licence or aquaculture licence …
We already have conflict-of-interest provisions that operate in relation to boards requiring people to step out if they are dealing with a matter that relates to their own personal interests, but with this bill the government has decided that they are going to take no chances and they are not even going to allow onto the board anybody who is a participant in the current commercial fishing industry. However, the bill makes no such exclusion in relation to recreational fishing. I could own a string of bait and tackle shops across the state and be perfectly entitled to sit on this board, but if I own a small commercial fisheries licence, I am banned by law from sitting on this board.
Mr Davis's amendment does not really address that. It does not seek to get rid of the exclusion — —
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER — Well, it is interesting, because the way Mr Davis has drafted his amendment is to add to the skills-based subclause something called 'fishing industry operations'. I think in his comments he actually said this meant commercial fishing industry operations, but that is not what the amendment says. Mr Davis, for some reason, has not imported the definition of 'commercial fishing industry' from elsewhere but has just said 'fishing industry operations', which to me could mean anything that occurs on a commercial basis, including various things we discussed earlier in the debate. So in my view Mr Davis's amendment does not get rid of the ban on commercial fishers participating on this board. It does not even necessarily add a requirement that someone with commercial fishing experience is to be on the board. Now we have Mr Young adding to it saying that recreational fishing, though, is definitely going to be on the list.
It is a mixed and confusing situation. It is not particularly confusing what the bill does. It provides for a deliberate ban of commercial fishers but no ban on people who make their money through recreational fishing industries. Mr Davis's amendment does not really do what it says it does. Mr Young is certainly reliable. He is sticking up for the name of his party. It is not the Recreational Fishers Party; it is just the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. He never said 'Recreational Fishers Party'. Maybe the minister can shed some light on how she thinks this clause is going to operate and how it would operate with Mr Davis's amendments and maybe Mr Young's amendment in place.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Thank you for that explanation, Minister. I agree with most of what you said right up until the end. You then connected clause 22(2) and the need to ban commercial fishers.
[Speech was interrupted.]
Mr BARBER — No, no. I understand there is also a (c) and a (d), but I am homing in particularly on subsection (b), which is the current commercial fishery licence-holders.
Now, you say that the reason it is there is in relation to the regulatory functions of the body, but the body does a lot more than just regulate. The body is a promotional body. The body is given the job of delivering Target One Million, which is an expansion by one-third of the number of recreational anglers under your target. Whether they manage to expand the number of fish by one-third, we will wait and see. Nevertheless individuals on this board will be making decisions about how to deliver that target that could involve stocking, that could involve expansion of boat ramps and that could involve looking after one recreational fishery or one region versus another, and they may or may not be said to have a conflict of interest in that by virtue of their participation in the recreational fishing industry. That would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
But for commercial fishing — netting — they are not being given that opportunity. You are basically saying, 'You're out', whereas no matter how big your financial stake in recreational fishing is, you can still participate in the work of this board, whose whole job is to expand your industry and, in some cases, make specific decisions around subsections of that industry which could benefit you. I take the minister's point about the regulatory function. There is not a lot of regulation of recreational fishing; there is some, and there could be more in terms of the issues that I have been raising during this debate. But I still do not accept that there is a big difference here that requires the banning of commercial fishery licence-holders from being on the board.
To access full speeches and debates please visit http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/hansard where you can search Victorian Hansard publications from 1991 onwards.