Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11690] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 It is not very often I agree with the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope but he does make a point that the purpose of this bill is to implement a negotiated settlement reached between the Crown and the commercial seafood industry in respect of the under-recovery and over-recovery of costs of the fishery services and conservation services relating to the period 1 October 1994 to September 2002. 
It is fair to say that there was a large degree of unanimity within the select committee except on one particular issue relating to those who did not pay their levies. Even though the courts have said it was illegal or the obligation by the Department of Conservation and indeed the ministry did not occur these fishers are still required to front with these levies. 
It is an indictment on the Department of Conservation and on the ministry that they did not perform their side of the contract. If the fishing industry is paying a levy then it seems to me that that is a contract of obligation on the part of the Department of Conservation and the ministry to fulfil. That certainly did not happen yet there is no full explanation as to why it did not happen. The Government departments of course are totally avaricious in terms of revenue gathering. They are not really concerned how much they gather as long as they get it. Then they realised that this has had a very deleterious impact on many in the fishing industry some of whom no doubt have had to find serious sums of money to pay these levies—possibly mortgage their houses—and others did not pay them. This is where the anomalies start to arise. 
It is entirely pertinent and prudent for the ministry to negotiate a settlement with the seafood industry. One of the problems that has occurred is that there have been accusations that the smaller players in the fishing industry who have since left and who have paid all these levies for research have totally lost any benefits and the benefits that remain of this $24-odd million will go to the major players within the industry. I certainly have some real sympathy for that particular point of view yet to take the situation forward as it has to be it is reasonable that we should support this negotiated settlement between the representatives of the fishing industry and the Crown to ensure that there is some way forward. 
However it is worth reflecting on the fact that so often with Government departments we do not get any benchmarking. We do not get the indicators flowing back to show that the benefits are accruing and that we are getting some performance from Government departments. So here we are some time later yet again tidying up the mess of the bureaucracy. There is no other way of putting it. It is a mess. It is not so long ago that we finished the scampi inquiry which was also something of a mess. I say to the Minister in the chair that he has his work cut out to ensure that this ministry and this industry gain the credibility that they should have. 
The fishing industry has enormous potential to sustain a very very worthwhile income for this country and indeed for itself but it needs to ensure that the structures it has in place are workable that they are benchmarked that when anomalies arise they are sorted out promptly and that the public can have confidence in the system and in the ministry. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As I stand to debate this bill I say that one thing is an absolute mystery. The mystery is this: how did the industry get to a point where there were such overs and unders with the collection of these levies that we are now in a position of having to do such a massive tidy-up? The unders and overs with the levies that have been collected were supposed to go to the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries to undertake research. In situations where the research has not been carried out this is very difficult to understand because from working within the scientific community one thing is very clear. Scientists up and down the country are struggling to get funding for their various research projects. They are keen to get more research undertaken. So when some money has been collected for the express purpose of carrying out research it seems an absolute scandal that the money has not been apportioned to that particular area. I think there will be a number of scientists who shake their heads wondering why this money was not spent and is now being redistributed to the fishery. 
I commend the work of my colleagues Phil Heatley and David Carter on the Primary Production Committee because I know that they have worked extremely hard to bring up issues relevant to the industry but also to point out some of the holes that were apparent when the first bill came before them. When one looks at some of the fisheries and the huge amount of money to be redistributed we are not talking about small change but large dollars. The payment to the hoki fishery is $2.3 million and that in itself could have funded very significant research into that particular area. I look at some other fish such as the swordfish the Arrow squid snapper orange roughy or even the big-eyed tuna at $791000. That amount in itself could have funded significant research that could have gone some way towards better things for those involved in the industry. We do support the idea that the funding is being returned to the fishery and not to individual fishermen within the fishery. I think we have seen this as a system that has been used in other aspects of our agricultural industries as well. 
The whole point though is not to overspend and undercollect or to overcollect and underspend. Hopefully by efficient management of the collection of levies in more cases than not one would hope that the amount has been equally spent and allocated towards projects that needed to be done. It is a shame that we are having to hand money back because as many of us know getting money in the first place so that people can undertake scientific research is often very difficult. Research in itself is not easy to champion within some sectors and particularly since the hard work had been done and the levy had been extracted it is a shame that it had not been put to good work for the betterment of the industry. 
This is an omnibus bill. It is a fisheries amendment bill that oversees most of the different fish within the industry. The bill itself is a quite small but technical bill. As Phil Heatley has explained it attempts to tidy up some of the problems that have occurred for some time now in terms of not only the overcollection of levies in certain cases but more important the undercollection of levies in other cases. So this is a common-sense approach to dealing with what is quite a complex issue. I do find it interesting to read the Greens’ report and some of the concerns that they have raised. Their concern is that the funding is not being returned to individual fishers. It seems interesting that those members take issue with funding being returned to individual fishers when they do not do so with the tax system.