 |
 |
|
|
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to ask the Attorney-General, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, a question about the marine scale fishery restructure.
Leave granted. The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I refer to a document entitled Marine Scalefish Fishery Restructure—Synopsis of the SA Marine Scalefish Fishery published by Primary Industries and Resources SA, dated January 1999. This document states that it is `based on the best available data' and is intended to be used `as an aid to informed analysis and discussion about marine scalefish resources in SA' prior to the preparation of a management plan for the fishery. The purpose of a management plan, in turn, is to ensure that the fishery is sustainable in the long term. On the one hand, it states that almost one in three South Australians over the age of five, some 450 000 people, go fishing at least once a year and are therefore recreational fishers.518 The document then uses Victorian data to suggest that, for every 30 recreational anglers, one full-time job is created in the hospitality, tourism or service industries. It therefore concludes that more than 15 000 jobs in South Australia are created by recreational fishing. The report, however, does not say whether the Victorian definition of a `recreational angler' is the same as the South Australian definition, that is, someone who goes fishing merely once a year. The jobs figures, therefore, may be an overestimation.
In contrast, when it comes to the impact on the long-term sustainability of marine scale fishing in South Australia, the report takes an opposite approach. Figures provided on the total recreational catch are confined to boat anglers only. The report, which is supposedly based on the best available data, simply does not count the impact on the fishery of shore-based and jetty-based anglers. Surely a large number of the 450 000 recreational anglers fish from the shore or from jetties. Counting only the fish taken by those in boats, we find that recreational fishers take 34 per cent of all King George whiting, 75 per cent of all blue mackerel, 25 per cent of all snook and 19 per cent of all southern calamari. On average, they take 20 per cent of all fish caught in South Australian waters. The true impact is undoubtedly much higher. The second point from the report relates to how little we know about the viability of some major species caught by both recreational and commercial fishers. On pages 15 and 17 of the report we find that for garfish, cuttlefish, yellow fin whiting, sand crabs and mud cockles there is an unknown stock structure. In other words, no detail is known. For ocean leatherjackets there is no current investigation into localised depletion. My questions to the Minister are: 1. Given that the impact of recreational angling is minimised in the report and that so little is known about so many species, how can a management plan which aims to ensure the fishery is sustainable in the long term be based on such incomplete, misleading data? 2. What action will the Government take to improve its knowledge of the species most commonly fished? 3. Will the Government give an assurance that funds collected in commercial fishing licence fees will be allocated to greater research in this area and, if so, will recreational anglers, who take more than 20 per cent of all fish, be required to fund any research into the sustainability of their hobby?The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I will refer that question to my colleague in another place and bring back a reply.
Read the Government's reply: 7 July 1999