Lack of enforcement, sustainability data, in Murray River Fishery

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 28 October 1999

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 1999 Spring Session Index Browse by Subject About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney- General, representing the Minister for Primary Industries, Natural Resources and Regional Development, a question about fishing in the Murray River.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Last Saturday I attended a public meeting at Walker Flat to discuss the state of the river fishery. The meeting was called in response to several developments in the river fishery this year and was convened by the local council of that area. Mayor Ian Mann was a principal contributor.

In March the all-party Environment, Resources and Development Committee found that it was impossible to tell whether current fishing activity in the river was sustainable. Therefore, in a tripartisan report the committee recommended getting accurate annual assessments of native fish stocks in the Murray and, based on the lack of proof that the river fishery is sustainable, that all commercial fishing in the river be phased out over 10 years. However, the government rejected that advice and, on 1 July, did the opposite, increasing the size of commercial fishing reaches by up to two kilometres each and opening up the backwaters of the Murray River.

In a letter to the member for Hammond ( Peter Lewis) on 10 August 1999, the Minister for Primary Industries (Hon. Rob Kerin) stated:

To remove current entitlements to either commercial or recreational sectors without biological, social or economic information would be inequitable.

Whilst the committee viewed the lack of proof of sustainability as a reason to stop fishing commercially, the minister viewed this same lack of proof as a reason not to change the status quo and has instead increased the access of commercial fishers. The committee also took much evidence on the effect of the river fishery of illegal fishers (poachers), and recommended funding more compliance officers (to help reduce the incidence of illegal fishing) and a levy on recreational fishers. At the Walker Flat meeting last Saturday, in a response to a question from me to the Director of Fisheries, Dr Gary Morgan (who was present throughout the whole meeting), he told us that he had only one compliance officer for the entire river (that is, north of the barrage) when in fact he needed at least four.

However, the minister has rejected the committee's recommendation for funding more compliance officers through a levy on recreational fishing. The minister has not come up with any alternatives for funding compliance. Therefore the status quo is that a single compliance officer in the Riverland is funded entirely from the levies of commercial fishers, and there is little fear of any illegal activity by poachers or fishers, either recreational or licensed, being detected, let alone prosecuted. My questions to the minister are:

1. Does the minister agree with the Director of Fisheries that four compliance officers are needed in the Riverland? If so, what action will he take?

2. Why does the government put so few resources into monitoring compliance when, by the minister's own admission, it does not know whether even the legal commercial fishing practices are sustainable?

3. If the minister does not have adequate biological, social or economic information, so that removing current entitlements would be inequitable, on what basis did he move on 1 July to increase current entitlements to commercial fishers and when does he expect to have adequate biological, social or economic information?

4. Finally, why has the minister permitted commercial fishers to take native fish species from backwaters since 1 July, and when will the minister act to end this practice, which he says he does not support?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): I will refer those questions to my colleague in another place and bring back a reply.

This is the second question Ian Gilfillan has asked on this topic in 1999.
Refer to the earlier question: 8 July 1999 and the Government's reply 4 August 1999