ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: FISH STOCKS
The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I move:
That the thirty-first report of the committee, on fish stocks of inland waters, be noted.The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I support the motion. As it turned out, our report has focused solely on the Murray River. That happened, first, because we received no adverse comments in relation to the lakes and the Coorong fishery and as such there was no suggestion for any change. We did intend to visit the Coongie Lakes but, as has just been explained, the second time we almost made it, but in both cases inclement weather prevented that.
516 This is something that deserves to be looked at. Many reports have come to me of significant amounts of illegal fishing taking place in the north-east of the State. Large numbers of native fish are being caught and finding their way to the Melbourne and Sydney markets. It is undeniable that it is happening and, unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, few people are being caught—and there are big dollars in it. The Government really needs to act.
The Hon. R.R. Roberts: Where are they fishing? The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: They fish in the whole Cooper Creek system. Whenever it floods there is a massive amount of water and a big build up in numbers. And even some years later, as the water evaporates, they are then concentrated in some of the remnant waterholes. There are very large numbers of fish up there. So, that is a problem that remains unaddressed by this committee, but not due to lack of interest. There are also other inland fisheries that the committee did not look at. I have read (I believe in a Balaklava newspaper, if I recall correctly) about the River Broughton and some of its headwaters, where there are, in fact, fish stocks which are being affected, largely due to a very large amount of dam construction. It is a river that does not flow a lot of the time as it is, but the dam construction is adversely affecting the waterholes that from time to time keep remnant populations that respond after rains. There is also a little bit of fishing happening there. Very little is known about those habitats at this stage, other than that they are in rapid deterioration. And, of course, there are other small fisheries, although they are not fished commercially, such as in the South-East. Eight Mile Creek and a whole lot of creeks that run to the sea have stocks of eels and other marine life, and those creeks are being heavily fished illegally. I have some personal awareness of that, having originally come from Port MacDonnell, which is near some of those creek systems. However, the committee's focus ended up being entirely on the Murray River. When the Murray River was clear and one could look to the bottom and see the bottom—not because it was dry but because the water was clear—it had significant fish stocks and supported a very large number of professional fishermen. But as we have interfered with the river system—in South Australia by building locks and upstream by just sheer diversion of large amounts of water—both the quantity and the quality of the water in terms of turbidity and salinity have changed dramatically.As a consequence of that, the fish stocks have plunged. Some work is being done now to try to help them recover. For instance, attempts are being made to try to replicate the natural flooding-drying cycles of the backwaters of the river by the patterns of water release that occur, with the hope that this will induce some species to breed that currently are not doing so. In addition, the flooding of the flood plains often produces a lot of the food that goes back into the river and the billabongs, creeks and branches that run into and out of the river. So, there is some attempt to recreate the natural system. Obviously, we will never totally recreate it but, hopefully, at least we will get some return of fish stocks.
I am not at all sure what we can do about things such as the turbidity of the river. I think that has a lot to do with the amount of grazing pressure upstream. Clearly, once you have removed a lot of the bush cover heavy rains will carry a lot more clay particles into the river than would have happened when the natural vegetation was there. Turbidity, indeed, will be a difficult issue to attack: nevertheless, it should be.
With respect to water flows, we know that during the current election campaign in New South Wales the National Party, in particular, appears to be campaigning for increased diversions. We had an agreement with the Eastern States that there would be no further diversions—a recognition that, indeed, the river is being asked to give too much already. That is why the Murray River mouth has closed. Unfortunately, the people upstream think that any water that goes past them is wasted. I suppose you get a clearer idea when you are at the bottom end of the river about what is wasted and what is not than you do at the other end when you see water going past you, and I suppose in their minds it is an opportunity wasted.
I have argued for a long time that, indeed, as we go into this process now of irrigation licence transfer we should at the same stage look at trying to recover some water. I have argued, for instance, that each time a water licence is transferred we should try to recover perhaps 10 per cent of the water. We need to realise that water licences are now becoming very valuable items in their own right, and probably even more valuable because of transferability. Much of the water still is being used for low value crops: it is being used to grow grain, rice and cotton and yet, if you grow horticultural crops, you can get a yield 20 times as much per hectare.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron: You have to be able to sell it. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, you have to be able to sell it. But what I am saying is that water used for different crops has much greater value and there is no question that, as transferability starts operating, as the price goes up, it will move towards more valuable usage. I would predict that in the Murray-Darling Basin in years to come we could be in a position where we use less water and make far more profit and have far more jobs out of it just because we use it for higher value crops, and often crops that can be value added further—for instance, growing grapes and the value adding to wine. So, you have a valuable crop in its own right, then you value add it further and you have a lot more wealth generation coming out of it. So, if we are sensible about it we can get a win, win. We can get the river back into a much healthier situation and, at the same time, ensure that there is still economic growth. That is something which is, I would argue, readily achieved.It would worry me, however, if we allowed licence transfers to go on for some time, if all the water is fully committed and being more efficiently used and you do not have the capacity to take a little bit out of the system. And we need to—and we know that in South Australia, when one looks at the quality and quantity of water that we now have in this State. I recall that, back in the early 1980s—I think it was about 1982 or 1983—we really were a couple of months from disaster here in South Australia. Our dams in the Mount Lofty Ranges were empty and the river had stopped flowing—in fact, we were at the point where the water was starting to flow from the lakes back upstream. That was the water we had left in the State when, luckily, there was a break in the season. If we had had another six months of drought Adelaide would have been in desperate trouble. It rained, and we have all forgotten.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I will not say that everyone has forgotten, but I meant that in a generic sense about the State. Unfortunately—
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, I understand that. We have to get the river right. Until we get the river right we will never get the fish populations right—recognising that fish populations are in significant difficulty. As I understand it, we have about 30 professional fishermen—or fishers, I should say. Most of those are not full-time fishers. I think the recommendation—and the important recommendation—that comes out of this report is to say that, in the current circumstances, the additional pressure that professional fishing applies to fish stocks really cannot be sustained. So far as there is to be any fishing, it really should be recreational fishing—and let me tell members, as a person who has thrown the odd line into the river, you spend most of your time drowning worms. Very rarely—
The Hon. T.G. Cameron: Or a carp.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, and occasionally you pull in a carp. But you very rarely catch anything else. It is unfortunate in one sense that the Minister should have made the licences transferable only 12 months ago because, in so doing—and it is a strange thing to do when you know that the fishery is under pressure—the value of those licences clearly has escalated dramatically. But I suppose, on the other hand, you could argue for a number of those who have been fishing for a good part of their lives, and perhaps have been doing it even over some generations, that at least by making it transferable and upping the value, having now made a decision to buy them out, you could say that they are at least being paid for the livelihood that has been built up. It will take some time to generate the income, but I think that there will be a range of groups which would be interested in buying them out. For instance, to the east of Renmark is land that is now being managed by the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve, which has, as I understand it, three professional fishers operating within it.517 This area is reserve all the way north from the Murray River for a couple of hundred kilometres through a wide range of habitats, and professional fishing still happens within the river part of it. The Biosphere Reserve people might be interested in finding the money to buy out the fishing reaches that exist within their area.
Elsewhere, local government could make some commitment because, if there is to be fishing, I would like to encourage tourists to have a go at catching a fish. We all know that tourists spend hundreds of dollars for every fish they actually catch. The important thing is that they feel as though they have half a chance of catching one. More jobs could be created in the Riverland economy as a result of people trying to catch fish compared with the smaller number of jobs that are created by the professional fishermen. The multipliers are much greater on the tourism aspect of fish than they are on the relatively small number of professional fishers.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron: Freshwater fishing?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, freshwater fishing. As long as they are properly compensated, I do not think it is an unfair proposition. It worried me and the committee that very little comprehensive stock assessment work is available to read. Some work is being done, largely by one biologist, and the impression we have is that he is so flat out doing the research that virtually no publishing is going on. How can a sensible decision be made about how many fish can be caught and whether there will be an open season for cod if we do not have long-term stock assessments which tell us what is precisely going on? It is not enough for it to be largely in the head of the researcher: it must be available for the scrutiny of others. That is no criticism of the researcher, but at this stage not enough resources are going into that area.
The recommendations in relation to recreational fishing solve the problem of resources. The committee has recommended that people who fish in the Murray should be required to do one of two things, and the committee did not commit to one or the other. We should either have a recreational licence, which exists in the Eastern States, or we should use a tagging system. Under a tagging system, a recreational fisher buys a certain number of tags and, when they catch a fish, they attach the tag to it immediately. Either way, those people will be paying for the right to fish. That would generate an income and that income would then be available to be used for funding of compliance officers for fisheries research, facilities for recreational fishers, etc. The committee believes that, properly managed, the recreational fishery has the capacity to generate funds which can ensure that we are looking after the fishery as a whole in a more appropriate manner than we are at the moment.
As I recall, there were times when no fisheries compliance officers were based in the Riverland at all, yet it was common knowledge in the Riverland that there were a number of shamateurs, so-called amateur fishers, who had illegal nets and were probably catching more fish than the professionals and selling them. If professional fishing is phased out, those people will stand out even more. They will be the only people with large stocks of river fish. In the meantime, in relation to commercial fishing, recognising that the committee has recommended a phase-out period of 10 years, the committee also thinks there should be a docket system for fishers. In other words from the moment a fish is caught, the dockets will follow the fish the whole way until it ends up on a plate in a restaurant. A lot of the shamateurs go to restaurants, hotels, clubs, etc., and sell their fish. A docket system ensures that that does not happen. It is already used with some fish species in South Australia, and my recollection is that prawns have a docket system attached to them. I am not sure whether the Hon. Ron Roberts can confirm that, because he has spent some time looking at prawns and talking about them. It makes sense.If we are going to make a recommendation that commercial fishing cannot continue and it is to be phased out over a period, it makes sense to make a recommendation, as the committee has done with No. 9, that people cannot fish in backwaters. It is not legal to fish for native fish in backwaters, yet the Government is considering extending the reaches into backwaters. It is logically inconsistent to say that professional fishing is to be phased out but that in the meantime people can go into more areas than before. That is clearly inconsistent. We are also gravely concerned—
The Hon. R.R. Roberts interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That is not what is proposed. The committee was very concerned about the use of gill nets. At present, the number of gill nets that can be used is grossly excessive and we hope and expect that the Minister will act quickly on that matter to ensure that the number is limited. At this stage there is a limitation on the total amount of gear that can be used, but it does not distinguish between gill nets and a range of other types of fish-catching equipment.
The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I do not think that they addressed that. The general reaction is that most fishers do not use many, but they are allowed to use quite a large number of gill nets, and the committee formed the view that there should be a strict limitation on their numbers.
The Hon. A.J. Redford: We had extraordinary success when we banned netting a couple of years ago.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That was in the marine environment.
The Hon. A.J. Redford: I know the Hon. Ron Roberts tried to stop us, but it has turned out well for everyone.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The Hon. Mr Elliott has the floor.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The issue with gill nets in the marine environment was not whether it happened, but it was a matter of process that was the big debate. That was the issue. I have spoken about the interference with the river in many ways. One way of addressing that issue is fish bypass systems. Fish ladders are already in use, but they work only for some species. Certain species simply will not use them, and it appears that we will have to find other ways of ensuring that fish can bypass the locks.
The committee also recommended the investigation of no-take zones and aquatic reserves. There is now a very clear recognition in the marine environment that the very existence of aquatic reserves appears to bolster the catch of some species. There are certain areas where we can guarantee that there is a nucleus of the population, that they are able to breed up and it helps to sustain the strength of the population overall. It deserves further examination. I will not go through the rest of the recommendations and they are there for members to see. I commend the report to the Council.