Tuesday, 15 October 2019

 Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (13:58): I am pleased to make some remarks this afternoon on the Marine and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which is an omnibus bill to amend a number of principal acts in relation to fishing and marine transport. In respect of the Fisheries Act 1995 the bill seeks to cancel Gippsland Lakes fishery access licences and to put in place a compensation structure in respect of those licences, and that is the principal part of the bill and where I will spend most of my remarks today.

The bill also amends the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988 to expand the application of the definition of prescribed concentration of alcohol. It amends the Marine Safety Act 2010 to provide that volunteers are not marine safety workers, to provide for the suspension and cancellation of inactive pilot licences and to make further provision in relation to registration of pilotage services providers. I will also have some remarks in relation to that matter and also a couple of questions in committee. The bill amends the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 to extend the scope of that act to premises associated with the design, manufacture or supply of recreational vessels for marine safety equipment and pilotage services provider premises.

This bill, though, is primarily about the issue of the Gippsland Lakes and the decision by this government, which was an election commitment, to compulsorily remove or acquire the 10 outstanding licences that remain in respect of Gippsland Lakes fisheries and to put in place a mechanism for compensation around those licences. Now, you can argue that at a time where there are challenges in the Victorian economy, challenges for jobs and challenges particularly in Gippsland—of course we know that parts of Gippsland are heavily affected by drought at the moment—the merits of a government seeking to shut down an industry, any industry at any time, a legal industry, is unusual or questionable. But this was made as a commitment by the Labor Party, that if it was re-elected to government it would seek to, or rather it would, shut down commercial fishing in the Gippsland Lakes.

I note that the approach taken by the coalition prior to the last election was to support a voluntary buyout of licences for those operators who were interested in exiting the industry. There are 10 licences still active. The Labor Party’s approach was a compulsory shutdown of the industry, and that is what is now being given effect to through this legislation. My understanding, certainly from members representing the greater Gippsland areas, is that this approach remains a controversial one for those communities, with opinions divided on both sides. What we need to do with this legislation is to ensure that, given this is going ahead, the compensation arrangements that are put in place for those licence-holders are appropriate and reflect the undertakings that were made by the government, and that the expectations of those licence-holders are also met.

It is with some considerable concern, therefore, that the coalition does deal with this bill in the house today. This is a bill which was introduced in the other place on 26 August this year. It was a bill which followed very soon after the government undertook what it claimed was consultation with the affected licence-holders which took place on 9 August this year. As anyone who has been around government processes or parliamentary processes will know, given the bill came to Parliament on 26 August, at the time the government claimed to be undertaking consultation on 9 August this bill would already have been drafted. Drafting instructions the government would have already decided through its cabinet processes, because the way in which government legislation is created is quite extensive. Before a bill gets to Parliament the government must firstly decide its policy position which then forms the basis of a submission to cabinet known as approval in principle. That first stage is where the policy position is taken to cabinet. It sets out what the government intends to do along with a set of drafting instructions which will give effect to the drafting of the bill. That goes through cabinet, and if it is agreed by cabinet, it then goes off to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for the bill to be drafted. All the supporting documentation that goes around the bill, such as the second-reading speech, such as an explanatory memorandum, such as a statement of compatibility with the charter of human rights, also has to be drafted, and that then comes back to cabinet for a final approval. If cabinet ticks off on the final approval, it subsequently is introduced to the house.

Given this bill was introduced to Parliament on 26 August, at the time the government sat down and claimed to be consulting with those licence-holders in Gippsland on 9 August this bill was already drafted. It would have been virtually complete if not already complete, which just highlights that it was a sham consultation that was undertaken by this government, and the representations that were made to those licence-holders about the issues and concerns that they raised—which were many—was nothing but a hoax, because the government had already approved through cabinet its policy position. It would have had the bill drafted or very close to being finished drafted before it was finally approved by cabinet and came to the house.

So the process the government undertook was a sham. The issues that were raised, I understand, in that consultation process on 9 August included: concerns that were raised about the valuer-general’s valuation of the licences, which included the basis of the time frame for the catch history to be used to work out the compensation with the view that compensation should be based on the best three years of catch over the last five years, with that three years to be averaged; concerns raised about the valuation of the payout for equipment that was being used by these licence-holders; issues raised regarding possible incentives for early exit from the scheme rather than penalties being imposed for late exit from fishing activities; advice sought in relation to support services that would be provided; advice sought in relation to retraining opportunities which would be provided; and advice sought in respect to other opportunities within the commercial fishing sector which could be made available to participants in commercial fishing in the Gippsland Lakes.

So all those issues were raised at what the government claimed was a consultation meeting on 9 August, yet in reality it had already decided what its policy position was. Cabinet would have already signed off on it and the bill would have been virtually complete, so it was nothing but a sham. The government went to those licence-holders, who were there in good faith seeking to put forward their position and raise their concerns about the process and about the fact, for example, that the valuation that was being ascribed to the licence, which I understand was $371 000, was in fact less than the value for the last licence which had been sold on commercial terms. You could expect, given the compulsory nature of the acquisition of the licence—the cancellation of the licence—a valuation that was actually higher than the last market trade, given that had been a market trade by willing participants at $378 000, and this is a compulsory acquisition. In fact the compensation payment for the licence at $371 000 is less than the last market trade.

There is also the issue of the basis on which the catch was being assessed for part of the compensation mechanism and whether the volume of fish caught was to be averaged over the last five years, which is what the government has landed on, or whether it was in fact to reflect the best three out of the last five years—to allow for periods where people were not operating a licence because they may have been sick or injured or unable to work—and use the average of the best three years as the basis for determining the volume that is ascribed to the licences for compensation.

Another issue is related to the price of the catch that was being taken into consideration for compensation and whether the actual price was based on Melbourne market prices, which was the preference of the licence-holders, or whether simply national figures through the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics were to be used.

Another area of contention is the valuation provided by the valuer-general in respect of compensation for equipment. I am advised that most of the equipment—most of the capital that these fishing licence holders have invested—is in relation to their nets rather than their boats, with the investment in nets being in the order of $300 000 to $500 000 for each of the fishing licences. The compensation which has been offered—apparently based on the valuer-general’s valuations, which have not been released—is in the order of $60 000, so well short of the invested cost. The government has argued that is okay because the licence-holders retain the equipment and they can onsell it, but the reality of course is that with the industry being shut down by the government there is no-one to sell it to. There is no market for those nets because there will be no industry once this legislation passes. Therefore that compensation should not be $60 000; it should in fact reflect the value of the capital which has been invested by those licence-holders.

Concerningly, the government has refused to release to the individual licence-holders the valuer-general’s assessment of the value of their equipment. I understand nine of the 10 licence-holders had visits by the valuer-general to inspect the equipment and to make a real valuation on an individual business basis, yet the government has declined to provide those valuations to the licence-holders, bizarrely citing grounds of confidential business information. Now, how information relating to the valuation of the licence-holders’ own assets can be confidential from that licence-holder beggars belief, but it highlights the way in which this government has gone about this botched process.

So we have a situation now where the industry recognises that the government has made this pre-election commitment to shut it down and that is going to occur whether that is a good thing or not for those licence-holders and whether that is a good thing or not for the fishing industry—or indeed for the Gippsland community. But what we do not have is the clarity and certainty around appropriate compensation from the government taking that position and taking that decision.

We have seen a sham consultation process where, by virtue of the time frame, the decision was clearly already made by the government at the time they purported to undertake consultation, and the legislation was clearly well down the path of being put together, if indeed it had not already been completed by the time the government undertook this consultation.

It is the view of the coalition that the bill should not proceed at this time without that consultation mechanism being re-run and without genuine consultation being undertaken with those licence-holders and that consultation being fed into the legislation before it passes. It is the coalition’s intention to move a reasoned amendment to the second-reading motion, and I ask that that be circulated. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government commits to:

(1)   a genuine consultation process with the Gippsland Lakes fishery access licence holders on the compulsory buyback of their licences; and

(2)   releasing all expert advice, including the valuer-general’s assessment on equipment, to individual licence-holders in accordance with section 3A(1)(h) of the Fisheries Act 1995.’.

We recognise that this shutdown of the industry is going to occur, and the licence-holders recognise that as well, but it is important that this consultation be undertaken properly, not the sham that has been undertaken by the government to date. On that basis I would urge the house to support the reasoned amendment.

I would just like to touch on one other aspect of the bill, which is unrelated to the Gippsland Lakes buyback, and that is in relation to the amendment to the Marine Safety Act 2010, which makes provisions in respect of the suspension and cancellation of inactive pilot licences, being licences which have been inactive for 12 months. Concerns have been raised by the industry as to why this provision has been inserted in the section of the principal act which deals with disciplinary matters rather than in relation to the establishment and operation of those licences, and indeed on what basis the 12-month period of inactivity is the trigger for the suspension or cancellation of a licence, noting that there are circumstances where people can be on maternity leave and people can be otherwise on leave or ill for extended periods of time. Pilot licence holders can be subject to non-compete clauses in employment contracts, which would see them not operating as pilots for a period of 12 months. There is concern in the industry as to the way the government is seeking to insert that into the principal act and the basis on which the 12-month period has been determined. That is another matter that I will seek to touch on in the committee stage of the bill.

In relation to the principal part of the act we recognise the buyout and the shutdown of the Gippsland Lakes commercial fishing industry is going to occur, but the way in which the government has gone about it and the sham consultation that it has undertaken this year has been disgraceful. I would urge the house to support the reasoned amendment to ensure that proper consultation can be undertaken to ensure that the concerns of those 10 licence-holders can be addressed and those matters resolved before the house proceeds with the legislation that will cancel those 10 licences.

 Ms GARRETT (Eastern Victoria) (14:17): What a delight it is to speak today on this legislation, which will directly benefit my constituents in Eastern Victoria and indeed the whole state. Certainly the locals in my seat have been calling for this ban on commercial net fishing, and I am looking forward to that being delivered today. Before I begin I would like to pay tribute to the minister, Jaala Pulford, who is in the chamber today, for her enormous workload on this issue and for her passion in pursuing better boating and fishing rights for all Victorians. I also note the work of her adviser, Ms Heidi Flower, who again has been very passionate about work in this space. Under the Andrews Labor government we have seen many outstanding initiatives to improve boating and fishing for this state. With summer just around the corner, I know my constituents were delighted by the recent announcement of all public boat ramps being free. But this is just one piece of the boating and fishing puzzle, with this government making the largest injection of funds into fisheries on record. Phase 2 of the Target One Million program will receive an additional $35 million in funding because, to put it very frankly, fishing is really important to Victorians.

The state is home to 830 000 recreational fishers, who contribute around $2.3 billion to Victoria’s social and economic wellbeing. Not only is this about the recreational enjoyment and all the benefits that come, but this is about jobs—jobs in Gippsland, because tourism has been identified as one of the key new areas in which Gippsland is looking to grow its jobs base. I am sure Ms Bath will agree with me. I launched the Gippsland tourism 10-year strategy in beautiful Leongatha, and a key part of that strategy is the Gippsland Lakes: it is attracting people to spend time in that glorious part of Victoria, it is opening up eastern Victoria to a broader range of people who have not perhaps considered spending holidays there because it has been dominated by the other side of the state. But there are very, very savvy operators in Gippsland. The councils are on board and our community is on board to make sure we are driving those jobs in the tourism sector.

I think as we touch on just why fishing is so important to our communities and why this piece of legislation is really going to transform fishing in the Gippsland Lakes, we know from all the research that has been done—and we could certainly use a bit of it in this place, couldn’t we, gentlemen?—that fishing can lead to stress relief, social bonding, health benefits, self-fulfilment and most importantly a great thrill. Again, we could do with all of that in this chamber.

Mr Bourman: What about alcohol consumption?

Ms GARRETT: Well, I am sure that a few beers can be had as well, although it is a family-friendly activity, where generations of people are not just heading out on the boats, on the Gippsland Lakes, but throwing off from the pier and enjoying all that that offers. Of course I should put this bit here: you eat your catch in some circumstances.

In eastern Victoria, with which this legislation is primarily concerned—the great Gippsland Lakes—there are some of the best fishing and holiday destinations in all of Victoria. To then free it up, to remove commercial fishing from this part of the state, we are going to see a huge number of people taking advantage of that—not just the locals who love the lifestyle there, but an increasing number of people will be choosing to visit the area, to buy holiday houses in the area, to camp in the area, to day trip in the area—and there are all of the economic benefits that then flow.

The government has made fishing and boating a key priority. With the objective of this bill to end commercial net fishing in the Gippsland Lakes with a compulsory buyout of the remaining licences, it is a continuation of the journey that the government has been on with respect to Port Phillip Bay and Corio Bay. We are seeing in those areas significant marine stocks bouncing back and improved biodiversity of fish systems, and we all agree—well, I would hope we agree, but some of us clearly do not—that the Gippsland Lakes deserves to be on that same journey.

As has been outlined, the bill will phase out the 10 Gippsland Lakes fishery access licences over a two-year period to ensure that we are getting that stock replenished, the biodiversity enhanced and really significant benefits to the environment and to the recreational fishing sector. That is not to say we do not pay tribute to the history of commercial fishing in the area. Clearly the government has recognised the impact this will have on current licence-holders, which is why the compensation scheme is comprehensive, very clearly laid out and happening over a period of time so as not to totally stress people with an immediate impact.

I know there are many people who want to speak on this proposed legislation so I will wind up my remarks there, but I do want to say: this is a huge outcome for the people of my district, a huge outcome for the people who enjoy the Gippsland Lakes and all that it has to offer, a great step forward in stock replenishment and biodiversity improvements, and really importantly, a wonderful outcome for those hundreds of thousands of recreational fishers who have this as their passion—on top of their list of the things they love to do. It is also opening the door for those people who have not yet experienced the joys of fishing but no doubt will be able to when they visit, as they will in droves, this glorious part of Victoria. I commend the legislation to the house.

 Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:24): I would like to congratulate the fishing community of Gippsland Lakes on the magnificent negotiations they have held with the Andrews Labor government and on the very generous financial compensation package for the compulsory acquisition of their commercial fishing licences. It is a very good deal—$371 000 for the licence, the market value of the licence as assessed by the valuer-general. And of course they are getting compensated because the government is recognizing that a commercial licence is property. It would be remiss of me not to compare how the government declared commercial taxi licences were perhaps not property, even though the High Court of Australia said they were and recently in the Supreme Court of Victoria that was reaffirmed. For the fishos, it does not matter if they paid $50 000, $150 000 or even $350 000; they are all going to get $371 000 for each and every licence. Why are they getting it? They are getting it because they deserve it—it is property. However, the government determined that the taxi and hire car commercial licences will not be treated the same. Fishos will receive a further allowance of $60 000 for redundant fishing vessels. They get to keep their tinnies. At no stage did the government consider the taxi industry and offer to pay for the vehicles they put off the road because of the ill-thought-out, poorly managed and badly executed taxi and hire car reforms.

More—there is also compensation for the loss of income based on three times the annual catch value, calculated over a three-year golden harvest period. This is the right thing to do. Where is the compensation for the loss of income for the taxi licence owners and their drivers? They were impacted then and it continues today. Perhaps the Andrews government should go back to the valuer-general and look at the income for, say, the three years prior to the illegal entry of Uber and compensate those who were so badly affected. Those reforms and the explosion of illegal rideshare more than halved their rates of income to below the living wage.

I say congratulations to the regulator, who has failed us—the commercial passenger vehicle industry. I am constantly asked why this was allowed to happen. When did the Labor government decide to treat thousands of people in the taxi and hire car industries and their families differently to other Victorians? How do we justify this? This bill is an insult and a kick in the guts to an industry that is crippled with debt and is on its knees.

What is known as the commercial passenger vehicle industry is a joke. There are more than 100 000 drivers and over 70 000 cars; up from 8000 only two years ago. Drivers are fighting in the streets over jobs. An alarming increase of young women are being harassed in the streets, and some have been assaulted by unscrupulous people masquerading as legitimate rideshare drivers. This legislation has created an environment that provides opportunities for those predators to act in this way.

I say to all of you: we all have a responsibility here, including me. I have failed because I have not been able to convince this government that this system is not safe and must be addressed. After years of regulations having been developed because of the need to make taxis safer with cameras, GPS tracking and education, we have allowed a foreign rideshare company to set the rules that suit them. They have played this government off a break. Touting is rife; congestion is rising. For those who work in this industry there is no holiday pay, there is no sick pay and no superannuation. I will have a bit more to say about super a little later on. We expect these people to work in a set of conditions that would be unacceptable to the vast majority of Victorians.

I cannot support this compensation package no matter how much it might be deserved. This is a matter of principle for me. The government should have applied the same criteria to the taxi and hire car industry. We showed you how, but you ignored us: market value licence compensation and compensation for loss of income, because that would be the right thing to do. This government has plenty of things to be proud of, but the treatment of the taxi and hire car industry is not one of them. I cannot support this bill when a minority group is being treated so unfairly and another group of Victorians so generously. This is simply unfair. I cannot support this bill.

 Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:29): I rise this afternoon to make some comments in relation to the Marine and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Before I begin my discussion around the bill in general, it is interesting to note that recreational fishers have very much supported this particular buyout. The recreational fishing industry is certainly one that is flourishing, that has flourished and that has been enjoyed throughout Gippsland for many, many decades. Indeed as a born and bred Gippslander like me, my grandfather used to fly fish on the upper reaches of the Mitta Mitta, the Mitchell, the Nicholson and the like. He also, when he retired to Waratah Bay at the end of his career in the State Electricity Commission, made his own fishing rods and surf-fished. For years and years I never realised that fish actually had bones, because they were delivered to my table, to my plate, in beautiful filleted form, and quite often we had that much fish from Pa that we ate it for breakfast. And what a beautiful quality it was. Victorians deserve to have fish. My concern in relation to some of the buyouts we see is: where else is our fish going to come from now? We talk about quality—quality of life and quality of fish—and my other concern is also in relation to the quality that we are importing from overseas.

In relation to some of the specifics of the bill, this bill makes amendments to the Fisheries Act 1995, and I want to dwell on that in a moment; the Marine (Drug, Alcohol and Pollution Control) Act 1988; the Marine Safety Act 2010; and the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014.

Indeed much of this bill and my interest in it lies in relation to the Gippsland Lakes buyout of the commercial fishing licences there and those 10 fishers who are greatly affected by this. Ultimately they have seen the writing on the wall. They reluctantly—and I do say reluctantly—understand that the government put to the election that they would buy out these last 10 remaining licences on the Gippsland Lakes, so they knew that this was coming. However, they have conveyed to me via email, via phone call and through other mechanisms as well the fact that the process has been quite flawed, and they feel quite disrespected in relation to this particular bill.

I acknowledge that Mr Gordon Rich-Phillips has just put to this house a reasoned amendment that has come through our Shadow Minister for Fishing and Boating, the Honourable Tim Bull. In relation to that, without dwelling too much on it, it specifically focuses on removing the bill through an amendment so that there can be genuine communication and negotiation in relation to the buybacks. Also, in specifics, in the valuer-general’s assessment of the equipment it seems that the valuer-general has been able to, through the government, provide certain information but not on equipment, and that opaque nature is most unpalatable for the licence-holders of the Gippsland Lakes.

Now, it seems to me that this government revels and indeed excels in one thing: saying one thing to various stakeholders, various groups—and I am thinking of the CFA in particular. It says, ‘Trust us, we will work with you’, and then turns around and does the exact opposite. We have seen that even in the minutes of a Fisheries Victoria meeting that occurred on 9 August this year. The government said, ‘We will be partners with you in the process’. The minutes also reflected some of the things that the fishers wanted. They were challenging the valuer-general’s value of the licences. They wanted a different scheme, a most reasonable scheme, for the catch history in order to create and make those calculations for payment. They requested that the valuer-general revalue their equipment values and also make transparent that information. They also requested that the government create some incentives for those licensees who wanted to leave the system early rather than remain for those 12 months.

They also looked at what sorts of support services and retraining opportunities were available, and you must overlay that this is a most beautiful area of our state, but it also has its own economic problems. There is a drought in that area, and there are many people on the farms actually looking for second incomes to try to supplement them and stay on the land. It is not a great opportunity for people who have to hang up their nets and go into the employment market, and they asked for retraining opportunities. They also looked at other ways to deal with the compensation packages. These things were minuted by Fisheries Victoria, and there was no mention made that in the legislation pending their issues would not be addressed.

That was on 9 August. Come 27 August we saw the bill introduced in the lower house. As Mr Rich-Phillips has eloquently prosecuted, there are multiple steps that need to occur for legislation to be presented in a complete format in the lower house. That does not take 16 days, and the fishers feel very much that this was well underway and really that the consultation process was lip-service rather than actually being real communication and strategy around the buyout. In fact one of the fishers—and I thank him for communicating with me—Mr Arthur Allen, said, ‘As far as negotiation and consultation goes, I feel there was none’. Now, that is his opinion; he may be quite passionate about this. I want to read to you toward the end of my speech some of his other comments.

To the compensation package, I understand the minister said at that meeting, ‘Fishermen will have a voice in the legislation’. Well, how could they get that voice with a 16-day delay? We go on to the elements of the bill specifically and the exit package that they have concerns around: whether some paid for the licence; the compensation paid for redundant gear, and by ‘gear’ it generally means the nets; and the component based on catch history over a five-year period. If we drill down a little bit more, the payment of the licences was determined to be $371 000. I note from speaking with the licensees that over the past two years there was a willing buyer. A negotiated contract with the willing buyer for the future was $378 000. There is comparability there. However—and there are many instances of this—when land is acquired compulsorily, there is often a higher price paid than the going rate. Indeed I know Mr Allen also spoke about a licence, in a different location but still in Gippsland, that was paid out at $700 000. So their quibble, and rightly so, is about that compensation level. This was made available through the government on the public record. The valuer-general provided that information.

What is quite concerning, though, to the fishers of the Gippsland Lakes is the way the nets have been undervalued. Their equipment as a whole is generally nets and boats. Their boats are in the vicinity of up to $10 000, and often they will still want to keep those. So it is not seen as a great loss in that respect; they will keep those fishing boats. But the key factor here is that of those 10 fishers—and they had an assessment through the valuer-general; they came out and had a look—many of them feel that their value is between $250 000 and $500 000. What are they getting? They are getting $60 000 in return in this package, and again they are quite concerned that there has been no clarity around this evidence. Indeed Mr Allen went on to say that the valuer-general said, ‘This doesn’t match what I’ve been briefed on’. If the valuer-general is coming out to view fishing licences, to view their stock—their equipment—why is he getting briefed on something already? Also, the government will not provide this information, citing confidential business information. Well, if you are about to close down a business, then I can hardly see that it is confidential. Also, often those individual licensees just want to have an understanding as to how they were valued.

The other comment in relation to the nets is, ‘We’ll give you the $60 000 and then you can onsell your equipment’. Well, there is no further onsell available, due to the fact that this industry is now closed. In actual fact I think quite often that many of them have asked the government to take them away but provide greater compensation.

The third element of the package looks at the catch history. Again, as the Fisheries Victoria minutes stated, the fishers wanted the Victorian market price to be used, but the government has used Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) prices instead, which is providing a worse result, or a worse level of compensation. They cannot understand why you would not use the Victorian market position, as that is where they are sold at the same time. Indeed the catch history element looks at a five-year catch period multiplied by three. I know the shadow minister, Mr Tim Bull in the other place, my colleague in The Nationals, certainly went in to bat and talked about seeking the best three years over those last five years. That is often just taking into consideration that people run industry, and there can be periods of illness or times when you are not actually working day to day, so taking the best three is certainly a fairer situation. Despite having some assurances that that would be considered, again the bill has come out reverting back to the best five and an average.

In conclusion, I just want to read a couple of comments from Arthur Allen. He is a fifth-generation Gippsland fisherman. He does talk about the best three, rather than what is being undertaken at the moment. He says:

To magnify the pain, the Government has chosen to use ABARES’ estimated pricing, despite Melbourne Seafood Centre (where the fish is actually sold) providing a complete listing of average prices for the past financial year. The differences in prices are quite substantial. Black Bream, for example, our main fish, is almost $6 per kilo less on the ABARES list than the actual market average.

The government really should be explaining why it has chosen one over the other. He goes on to say:

I ask you to please look carefully at this legislation.

Hence why we have put through this amendment, not just for him but also for the other licence-holders:

Were fair, honest and just values given to the various components, then it would make a substantial difference to affected families. In my own instance, the $250 000 to $300 000 that has been removed by sleight of hand, will be the difference between reluctantly retiring—or having to seek work at the age of 63 in an area of nil to very few job prospects.

In conclusion, it is disappointing that the government seems to be high on rhetoric in terms of engagement but low on actual engagement. I take the previous speaker’s, Mr Barton’s, comments in relation to what happened in the taxi industry, but I do feel that when we stand in this place we should look at each and every piece of legislation as it comes through. I respect the pain that he has suffered in relation to that, but I also think that this house should certainly respect that these good people—as we have seen with a fifth-generation fisherman—are losing their livelihoods, and we should accept the reasoned amendment put forward by the Liberals and Nationals in relation to sorting out and solving this particular bill.

 Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (14:44): I am rising today in support of this bill. It should come as no surprise, as the first two parts of my party name are about recreational shooting and recreational fishing. There is not really such a thing as recreational farming, but anyway. This is going to be a godsend for the recreational fishers. Recreational fishing is quite a good earner for country areas—and around the city too, because we have got a built-around bay. We will find that there will be more fish for the recreational fishers, which will bring in more recreational fishers, which will bring in more people buying petrol, more people buying ice, more people going to hotels and all that sort of thing. It will be great, so I have no problem with this bill.

But I have been in touch with some of the commercial fishos, and I would say that they are fairly realistic about how this is going to turn out. Their interest is now in the compensation. They feel that they have been hard done by and that there is a whole lot of stuff that they are not going to be able to use for anything else. That has not been included in their compensation package, and they feel that this should be included in their compensation. I agree with them to a large degree, but I also hear Mr Barton’s pain. Last Parliament we were—

Mr Barton: I lost my house, mate.

Mr BOURMAN: Yes. Last Parliament we were part of the, I guess, resistance against the initial bill to try and get it fairer, and whilst it was better than it had been, it still was not good. As Mr Barton said, he lost his house. Our whole take on this should be that no-one should be losing their house. The person that contacted me initially said that the difference between what they believed they were owed as compensation and what they are going to get could mean going back to work in another field at 62 years of age. Now, I obviously have no way of verifying that, but there is no reason for it not to be true. Basically I am going to support this bill, but I really urge the government to go back to the table and see what else can be done. Also, I know it is a long way after the event, but I still think there is room to move on the taxi drivers as well.

 Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:46): I would like to say that our government—and I am proud of this—has been respectful in this process and has understood that there is an intergenerational impact, and that has been factored into this process very carefully. Bearing in mind that less than 1 per cent of total seafood consumed in Victoria is sourced from Gippsland, the buyout will have a limited impact on the consumption of seafood by Victorians. Having said that, we are still mindful of the impact on those commercial fishers; hence the very well constructed and thoughtfully prepared compensation package.

What I am also particularly proud of is that we have stocked 6 million fish across Victoria, delivered significant reforms to boost commercial fishing, increased agricultural production and continued our efforts to promote sustainability and responsibility in fishing because, after all, we know there is nothing more devastating than seeing the extinction of any species, let alone a fish species. We know that it is well documented that black bream have been in serious decline, so our government is doing the right and responsible thing. It is not an easy decision to make. It is a very serious decision, but it is one that has been taken very carefully and thoughtfully and with consultation—in spite of the rather derogatory comments of the opposition, which I think are quite unnecessary and insensitive under these circumstances.

I will touch only briefly on the consultation that has taken place, as I believe other members will speak to this in more detail, but just to be clear the Minister for Fishing and Boating met with Seafood Industry Victoria and the Gippsland Lakes fishery access licence holders in March 2019 to discuss the potential arrangements for the buyout. The Victorian Fisheries Authority provided licence-holders with a fact sheet on the potential arrangements in June 2019 and made several other attempts to meet with industry; however, these offers were declined by SIV and the industry. So I think in this discussion we need to be fair.

It is understandable that people will be upset and will feel impacted by the change. No-one is walking away from that, and that is why there has been such great care taken to make sure that the process is as fair and equitable as possible. If we zone in on some of the other concerns raised, the $371 000 for the licence is the market value of the licence as assessed by the valuer-general. Now, I am not sure if the opposition are somehow raising questions about the credibility of the valuer-general—I do not know—but what I will say is that the Valuer-General Victoria is the government’s authority on statutory valuations. The VGV has extensive experience in valuation issues and sensitive property transactions for sale, purchase, lease and compulsory acquisition. Most importantly, all valuations are conducted in accordance with the ISO 9001:2008 quality management system, because of course we are talking about taxpayers money. Obviously nobody is questioning the fact that there should be compensation under these circumstances, but it has to be done in a manner that is seen as fair and equitable across the Victorian community. Therefore there has to be a quality management system implemented to ensure that the process is right and proper.

The other point that I was going to make when talking about the VGV is that the VGV also provided advice on possible values for fishing gear, including boats, and after considering this advice the government determined that an allowance of $60 000 should be provided to each licence-holder for redundant fishing vessels and all commercial fishing equipment. When looking at previous buybacks, one can see parity in the amount of compensation offered. It is not out of this world. It is not way off. It is well within parity when looking at comparable buyouts and factoring in the size of the various vessels being utilised by the commercial fishers in the Gippsland region.

Some of the other issues that have been raised have been about being able to source fish elsewhere. Quality fresh fish will continue to be available from a variety of sources—from Victoria’s ocean waters, our longline fishery in Port Phillip Bay, Corner Inlet, other states and so on. Cancellation of these licences will have next to no impact on the supply of prawns, calamari, flake, snapper, King George whiting, flathead or scallops in Victoria. It should be noted that the Gippsland Lakes fish supply is only a small portion of seafood consumed in Victorian restaurants. Very few Melbourne restaurants appear to have Gippsland Lakes fish on their menus.

I am not saying that it is not meaningful to those people who have been undertaking these businesses for some time. Of course this is going to be an emotional process. This is a transition process, and no-one is in any way saying it is easy. But having said that, our government has taken into account the various challenges that these persons have to take on board, and hence a proper process has been put in place to ensure that the compensation is delivered appropriately and in a way that is deemed to be respectful to the Victorian community as a whole.

I understand that there are other speakers who wish to speak on this subject, so I will not elongate my discussion today. But I did want to speak to some of the sensitivities that have been raised, factoring in that it is a very important subject but that fundamentally we are doing the right thing when we look at sustainability for recreational fishing and also for fish stocks into the future: no fish, no fishing.

 Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:53): I rise to speak briefly to the Marine and Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The Greens have long taken an interest in the government’s buyout of local commercial fisheries. We supported the Port Phillip Bay industry when the government bungled that buyout, and similarly we share concerns about the buyout of the Gippsland Lakes industry.

There are a couple of points to make—firstly, on the closures in the industry. There is genuine puzzlement about the government closing local commercial seafood operations in the interests of recreational fishers. Commercial fisheries are monitored and exist within a framework of sustainability—sometimes not to the extent we would like. However, in contrast there is even less regulation of recreational fishing and its impacts on marine life; in fact we know very little about the sustainability of recreational fishing. This issue has been raised by the Victorian National Parks Association in their recent submission on Victoria’s marine and coastal policy. The association notes that there is no sound estimate of recreational catches and no policies relating to sustainable management of fisheries in the draft policies. In fact some policies that were in the previous Victorian coastal strategy have actually disappeared—policies that should be retained. Furthermore, local sustainable food production will become more important into the future, including continuing to provide good local jobs in regional communities. Closing local commercial seafood operations will necessarily mean more Victorians eating imported seafood.

It is also puzzling that the government is so keen to close this industry but so resistant to transitioning out of industries that are actually hurting the future of Victoria. I am speaking of course about logging native forests and continuing to burn coal, both of which contribute to climate change, leading to increasing temperatures, more extreme weather events and mass extinction—not to mention the impact of logging on Victoria’s water supply.

Secondly, we share the concerns of the opposition about how the government has gone about this process. The lack of consultation with those affected by the decision is of particular concern. We will therefore be supporting the reasoned amendment and encourage the government to go back to the licence-holders, talk with them, address their concerns and provide the relevant information. We support the bill, but we would like to see the government undertake appropriate consultation and then bring the bill back. This can happen quite quickly so the rest of the bill is not unnecessarily held up.

 Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (14:56): I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this important piece of legislation today, and indeed I thank those who have sought for this reform to occur for so very long.

If I could just take the opportunity to make a few points in response, this is an important election commitment and is a part of our commitments in the fishing and boating portfolio. It is now close to 12 months since the government announced our intention here, and we have worked hard throughout this year to provide certainty to the people who are impacted by this decision. I do not make people’s jobs redundant in any way lightly. We have worked hard to provide a compensation package where the average compensation to licence-holders is in excess of $800 000 a year, and we have sought to have input from affected licence-holders. I will come back to that in a bit more detail in a moment.

I would take the opportunity, just on a personal note, to credit Linton Barr, a man who was a tremendous advocate for the Gippsland Lakes fishery and indeed the environmental health of the Gippsland Lakes for so very many years. Sadly Linton did not live long enough to see this reform, but perhaps wherever older fishermen go in their next lives he is aware of this and appreciates that this thing that he sought for so long has happened. I have had the opportunity to meet Mr Barr and his wife, Dawn, on a number of occasions. Dawn could not be here today, but I am informed that she is watching the live streaming of the debate. I know this will be an important moment for that family, and I thank them for their advocacy.

I will come back to Gippsland Lakes in a moment, but there is a matter in the legislation on which the Boating Industry Association of Victoria (BIAV) sought some clarification from me, and that is in clause 17 of the bill. It makes amendments to the Transport (Safety Schemes Compliance and Enforcement) Act 2014 to extend the scope of powers of the director of transport safety and transport safety officers in relation to compliance and investigations. I will just take the opportunity to provide to the house some of the information that I have provided to the BIAV, to provide some reassurance to them about how we intend clause 17 to work.

The Marine Safety Act 2010 sets out a general safety duty for persons who are involved in or who may have control over the safety of recreational boating or marine operations. Sections 26 and 27 of the Marine Safety Act, respectively, impose duties on persons involved with and in relation to the design, manufacture and supply of vessels and marine safety equipment. The duties include ensuring so far as is reasonably practical that any vessels or equipment are safe. As the regulator, it is important that the director, transport safety, and transport safety officers of Transport Safety Victoria have the necessary powers to conduct compliance monitoring and enforcement of marine safety laws to ensure that all persons can enjoy their on-water recreation safely.

I have been advised that there are gaps in the scope of compliance and investigations powers which, if unaddressed, would leave the director of transport safety unable to respond quickly in the event there was an immediate risk to the safety of a person. Specifically in 2017 Transport Safety Victoria became aware of a serious safety issue relating to life jackets and was unable to take immediate action to address the issue. To rectify this the bill amends the definition of marine premises to extend the scope of that definition.

There are limitations on the exercise of those powers though, and this is the point that I was keen to have on the record in the house. The powers are not unfettered and there are limitations on the powers to ensure that such powers are exercised with discretion and appropriately in the circumstances. Firstly, the powers may only be exercised for or in relation to compliance and investigative purposes to ascertain whether the Marine Safety Act has been complied with or whether an offence has been committed under that act.

There are also common-law principles that would apply to the exercise of powers, including reasonable suspicion that the powers be exercised reasonably. There are also statutory restrictions that apply to the exercise of powers. The powers of entry are not exercisable in respect of marine premises that are also residential premises other than with the consent of a person on the premises or with a search warrant. Powers must also be exercised such that as little inconvenience as possible is caused and the officer is not on the premises longer than is reasonably necessary.

Additionally, a prohibition notice may only be issued in limited circumstances and must involve an immediate risk to safety. Such notice should only be issued in such circumstances as a measure to ensure that persons involved in recreational boating are not put in a position of risk. The decision to issue a prohibition notice is also reviewable.

Further, under the Marine Safety Act the director, transport safety, is required to develop a marine enforcement policy. The purpose of this policy is to support and promote maintaining compliance and enforcement of marine safety laws. It is my expectation that the Boating Industry Association of Victoria and other relevant stakeholders will be consulted by the director in the development and/or review of that policy.

The objective of the amendment is to promote marine safety. The amendment ensures that there is a consistent and transparent application of the marine safety framework, particularly in relation to the general safety duties that currently apply to designers, manufacturers and suppliers of recreational vessels and marine safety equipment. I am satisfied that the amendments in the bill are appropriate and consistent with other laws and will be exercised reasonably and with due consideration by enforcement officers.

If I could now return to some of the matters that were raised by members during the course of the second-reading debate, in particular in relation to the buyout of netting in the Gippsland Lakes, it is disappointing that the opposition have sought to defeat this reform at every turn. The procedural motion that is moved today is something that would have the same effect as the defeat of this bill. I know the opposition do not want anglers to know that, but that is simply the effect of the reasoned amendment. The government will not be supporting the reasoned amendment. The government will be continuing to pursue the delivery of this election commitment to provide adequate compensation to the 10 affected licence-holders and to restore the Gippsland Lakes to their former glory.

On consultation, there have been some extraordinary claims made in this debate around consultation, and I would like to correct the record. There has in fact been consultation and many attempts for further consultation with the licence-holders. The Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA) CEO wrote to Seafood Industry Victoria (SIV) and licence-holders, offering to meet in Lakes Entrance in the first week of December 2018. That is when attempts to consult licence-holders began. Seafood Industry Victoria and licence-holders declined this opportunity.

The Victorian Fisheries Authority chief executive travelled to Gippsland to meet with licence-holders and Seafood Industry Victoria on 20 February and none of the licence-holders attended the meeting. I met with the Gippsland Lakes licence-holders and Seafood Industry Victoria in Lakes Entrance on 13 March to discuss the proposed licence buyback. On that occasion the licence-holders unanimously agreed to being exclusively represented by Seafood Industry Victoria and asked that all communications go through Seafood Industry Victoria. That is an undertaking I gave at the request of the 10 licence-holders. All 10 were in attendance, and that was their decision and one that I respected.

The Victorian Fisheries Authority and Seafood Industry Victoria met on 3 May and tentatively scheduled a meeting with licence-holders for mid-May in Lakes Entrance. A seafood industry executive officer subsequently advised he would meet with them alone and arranged a further catch-up between licence-holders and the VFA the week commencing 20 May. The VFA wrote to all licence-holders on 21 May noting the meeting and offered to attend organised meetings or meet with people directly. Again no responses were received. The VFA contacted Seafood Industry Victoria on 23 May to discuss the licence-holder meeting outcomes and were advised that SIV would provide a summary the following week. No summary ever turned up.

The VFA, SIV and I met on 11 June, when SIV presented the licence-holder position to my office. The VFA contacted SIV on 2 July to arrange a meeting with licence-holders, with an agreed date of 18 July. On 16 July SIV cancelled the meeting at the request of licence-holders, who did not want to meet. A summary fact sheet was provided to SIV on 16 July outlining the proposed buyout package. SIV declined to distribute this to licence-holders until 29 July.

As members have observed, there was a meeting between the VFA and licence-holders and SIV in Lakes Entrance on 9 August. That meeting was attended and did go ahead, but there have been so many attempts to engage. The people who are affected by this decision have had every opportunity to have their input on questions about three years or five years—the exact same types of questions that we discussed with licence-holders in Port Phillip Bay and Corio Bay, where we were in a position to respond to their desires.

Obviously I understand licence-holders do not like this reform and did not like that reform in Port Phillip and Corio Bay, but we were willing—within a framework where we were determined to deliver on our election commitment—to discuss these things: three years, five years, catch, effort. The total amount of compensation was set, the determination by an independent auditor of the value of the licence again was set, but some of those variables within the package we were open to discussing, and time and time again it was not possible to consult because people did not turn up and people cancelled meetings. So it is a little cheeky that the fig leaf that the coalition are using today to move this procedural motion—which would have the effect of defeating this reform but is so that they can pretend to anglers that they did not oppose this reform—is this palaver about a lack of consultation, when such effort was made time and time and time again to engage.

We were very respectful of the express desire by the licence-holders to deal with them and their issues through Seafood Industry Victoria. I cannot help but wonder if there might not be some people regretting that decision now, but that is perhaps a bit of speculation on my part. It is a source of some regret to me that, for reasons I will never understand, people who are so profoundly impacted by this reform chose to not seek to influence it in the ways that were available to them to do so. But we are all grown-ups here and these are conscious decisions that people made, no doubt at a point when they were advised by their representative, by the organisation that they pay their membership fees to and an organisation that they very consciously and knowingly nominated to be their sole representative in these discussions.

I thank all members for their interest in this issue. There have been a lot of members who have spoken in this debate. I thank all the people in East Gippsland who have contemplated the economic impact and the benefits that will flow and also for some of the questions that people have raised in the local community about the very personal impact that this will have on licence-holders. We have sought at every turn to deal with these people as respectfully as we possibly can, as we have sought to deliver on this election commitment.

I look forward to taking more questions from members during the committee stage of the Parliament’s proceedings this afternoon, but I am not supporting the reasoned amendment. I think that the least we can do for people who are going to be very much impacted by this reform—a reform that they do not like and that they do not support, I understand—is that we provide them with some certainty rather than pretending, under the guise of procedural moves in the house, to do otherwise. I commend the bill to the house.

House divided on amendment:

Clause 1 (15:18)

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, I have got a few questions I would just like to cover in clause 1 and will do them all in that clause, if that is agreeable to the committee. The minister referred in her summing up to consultation and various attempts between the department and the licence-holders to have various meetings. I would just like to ask her specifically in relation to the meeting which did take place on 9 August where a number of matters were raised—and I outlined some of those matters in the second-reading debate: why were the licence-holders not given a response to the issues that were raised at the meeting of 9 August prior to the bill being introduced on 26 August?

Ms PULFORD: There were numerous attempts to engage with Seafood Industry Victoria (SIV) as the licence-holders’ representative organisation, at their request, and we found them incredibly difficult to engage with.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Can I just be clear, was that following the meeting that actually did take place? I am keen to understand. The meeting did take place on 9 August, and my understanding is the loop was not subsequently closed on those issues that were raised before the bill came in. I just want to clarify that is the case, that on the issues that were raised at the face-to-face meeting on 9 August there was no subsequent follow-up from the government back to the licence-holders before the legislation was introduced?

Ms PULFORD: It was our intention that it be an iterative process and that we would have ample opportunity through SIV to respond to matters that were raised. A number of matters that were raised I was able to respond to at the time. While I do not have a transcript of that meeting, and it was quite a number of months ago, for instance we were asked if we would help people to remove gear. We were on that occasion able to indicate that we would and that we would do that at no cost. We were able to indicate our intention around Rural Finance administering the scheme and a number of other matters, but it was the first meeting that the licence-holders had attended and so I took the opportunity to describe the process.

I did refer on a number of occasions to the process four years earlier with the buyout in Port Phillip and Corio Bay just to provide some context and by way of illustration that there would be three components; one for gear, one for effort and one for the mechanism by which the licence would be valued and the range of things that we would take into account on an assessment of effort. That was something that would have been nice to have had feedback from, but we found, as I indicated, it was very frustrating. I am not overstating it, and I would not suggest that my upset about how difficult it was to engage with affected licence-holders was anywhere in the league of how upset the licence-holders are with this reform—I am not comparing the two—but it was very disappointing to me that we were not able to have that iterative process around how elements of this would work.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, can I go to some of the specifics of the compensation. It arises from the meeting on 9 August. Part of the compensation is reflecting on the catch that has occurred over the previous five years and putting a price on that catch. The government in the compensation mechanism has determined to use national prices, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics figures, rather than the preference of the licence-holders, which was Melbourne market prices. Why has the government used the national ABARE figures and not Melbourne market prices, which I understand was the way the government approached the Port Phillip Bay buyout?

Ms PULFORD: Data was provided by industry, data from McLaughlin Consolidated Fishermen Ltd, and industry suggested that this would provide a more accurate valuation of the price paid to licence-holders. But McLaughlin’s does have board members who include commercial fishermen elected by shareholders, and to maintain the integrity and independence of the process for determining compensation and also to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest, only data and information other than individual catch history that had been obtained from independent agencies was used. So we chose to use an independent agency and in doing so to avoid any perception of or real conflict of interest.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: And that was an ABARE evaluation?

Ms PULFORD: Yes.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. And that was consistent with the approach you took with Port Phillip Bay?

Ms PULFORD: That is correct.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: In relation to the buyout, or the compensation for the equipment, which was mostly and largely the compensation for netting, why was that set at significantly less than the compensation which was provided to the Port Phillip Bay licence-holders for their netting? I understand there is substantially more netting involved for the Gippsland Lakes licence-holders.

Ms PULFORD: The figure is less than the $75 000 that was offered for Port Phillip Bay. I am advised that the reason for this is the boats are smaller and the gear is different to the larger net fisheries that were in Port Phillip Bay. While we are on gear, though, if I could just make a couple of other comments, Mr Rich-Phillips and Deputy President, the government is not buying back fishing gear and nets. Mr Rich-Phillips alluded to that in his question. Gear like vessels, outboard motors, trailers, fridges, freezers and anchors can all be sold on the market, and we do not intend to buy them back. The main types of fishing equipment used in the Gippsland Lakes fishery are mesh and seine nets. In terms of a market for those, seine nets used in Gippsland can be adapted for use in—

Mr Rich-Phillips: On a point of order, Deputy President, the minister is fairly soft in her delivery, unlike the noise out in the corridor.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will get someone to deal with the corridor.

Ms PULFORD: Thank you. Let me start that bit again because I know this is a point of interest that has been raised during the debate and before today as well. The amount of compensation for gear in Port Phillip and Corio Bay was $75 000. The point of difference is that the boats are smaller and the gear is different. Lots of gear still has a market. Vessels, outboard motors, trailers, fridges, freezers, anchors and the like can all be sold, so we do not think it is necessary to buy this gear back.

The type of fishing equipment used in the Gippsland Lakes fishery is mesh and seine nets. There is a market for these. Some of the seine nets used in Gippsland are suitable, I am advised, for use in Western Australia and New South Wales fisheries, and mesh nets can also be adapted for use across a range of fisheries in other jurisdictions such as South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania. But I would also make the point, to put that in context, that many fishing nets only last for a reasonably short period of time. They require constant repair and replacement due to use and damage, exposure to the elements and the like. It has been estimated that a full mesh net would typically be replaced on an annual basis, so these are things that do depreciate quickly and lose their value quickly. We believe that $60 000 per licence-holder is a fair and reasonable offset for gear, particularly when there is a market for gear and when we will assist people to remove gear, if that is their desire, at no cost to the fisher and given the rate at which these particular types of nets depreciate. I understand this is not a point with which the licence-holders are particularly satisfied, but that is the position that we reached and some of the reasons why.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Yes, it is certainly a point of contention as to where the sunk capital is for these licence-holders, and the advice I have received is that it is certainly in the nets rather than the boats and outboard motors. You made the point that outboard motors can be resold, but the advice I have received is that the bulk of the capital is in the nets. There is certainly contention as to whether they can be re-used or resold into other fishing environments, but I note the point you made on that.

Given the government provided information to the licence-holders with respect to the value of the licence, why has the government elected not to provide the valuer-general’s valuation of the gear that they are receiving compensation for? When the valuer-general visited or inspected, I believe, nine of the 10 operations to assess the value of that gear, why has the government subsequently decided not to provide those valuations to the licence-holders?

Ms PULFORD: The government has provided a summary to industry, but we have determined not to provide that collective picture to all licence-holders given it contains the individual financial details of a group of separate businesses.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister, but to be clear I am not asking about providing the valuations to all licence-holders—rather, the valuation that relates to an individual licence-holder to that licence-holder. So why have you not given the valuer-general’s assessment of the asset to that asset owner in respect only of their own assets?

Ms PULFORD: I am advised that at no point has that been sought.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Again, Minister, I think that is probably an area of contention, given it has been raised as a substantial matter of concern by the licence-holders to the opposition—the availability or lack of availability of that valuer-general information. But given that, will the government now undertake to provide that information to the individual licence-holders in respect of the valuation of their own assets?

Ms PULFORD: Yes, I can certainly confirm that that has not been sought previously, and I am happy for the Victorian Fisheries Authority (VFA) to have one-on-one discussions with licence-holders about their own individual circumstances.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, just to be clear: that includes providing them with the valuer-general valuation in respect of their own assets?

Ms PULFORD: I confirm that I am happy for the VFA to have those discussions with individuals about the value of their own gear. I think it is also important, though, to make the point that this has to be seen in the context of my earlier comments around markets for gear, around collecting gear and around depreciation of gear. So that assessment of who has what gear and what it is worth has informed the rate that has been set in the legislation.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. I guess what was not evident in that answer then was a clear undertaking that fisheries will provide the valuer-general valuation to the individual asset holder. You talked about discussions between the agency and the existing licence-holders, which is fine, but for the avoidance of doubt if you are able to give a clear undertaking that the licence-holders will be given the valuer-general’s figures for their own assets, that would be helpful.

Ms PULFORD: Yes, so to confirm: we can ensure that people have that information from the report. The report collates that across all licence-holders, so the report in its entirety relates to the circumstances of 10 different businesses, and I have indicated our reasons for not sharing that, but we are happy to provide individual information and individual circumstances to licence-holders should they wish to pursue that.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Minister, since you answered that question I have been advised that the licence-holders did seek that information, the valuer-general’s valuations in respect of their own assets, from fisheries. Are you able to confirm your earlier answer that that was not the case?

Ms PULFORD: I can confirm that the officer at the Victorian Fisheries Authority who has had carriage of this and responsibility as the primary point of contact has never been asked that question. I can also confirm that the advisor who supports my fisheries work in my office has never been asked for that.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, I would like to ask you about another issue that came up at the 9 August meeting, and that was the mechanism by which licence-holders could stay in the industry longer. You struck a proposal where if a licence-holder extends by 12 months their participation in the industry their compensation is reduced by 20 per cent. In respect of the Port Phillip model the reduction was 10 per cent for a 12-month extension. Why the difference with Gippsland Lakes?

Ms PULFORD: This commitment is to deliver this reform over two years; the commitment in Port Phillip Bay was to deliver the reform over eight. If you will recall, the legislation in 2015 reduced it by 10 per cent each year—so different circumstances, a different scale of fishery. Again, I think providing certainty to the people who are in this fishery is important. We had, if my memory serves me correctly, 43 licence-holders in Port Phillip and Corio bays, with eight electing to stay in the fishery as line fishers, two electing to stay for some subsequent years and the rest opting out in year one. These businesses will have a decision to make about which course of action they would prefer—whether they want to stay in the fishery for another year or whether they want to exit in the first year of these sets of arrangements.

I think it is also worth noting that with some of these businesses their Gippsland Lakes access licence represents only part of their business—each of them has quite an individual set of circumstances. Rural Finance will be administering this to provide that support. We have also sought, for completeness, a ruling from the Australian Taxation Office around the tax treatment of the different components of the package as well, a very similar ruling to the ruling that was made, and Corio and Port Phillip bays were two of the components. They are not treated as income and the third is.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Minister, I would like to ask you about the mechanism the government arrived at for the effort component of the package based on the average catch over five years multiplied by three, with the values we have already discussed. It was the view of the licence-holders that that calculation should be based on looking at the three best years out of the last five in order to allow for periods when licence-holders may not be operating, as I indicated in my second-reading speech, when illness et cetera led to them not operating continuously for the five years. I also understand there was an understanding among the licence-holders that it was the model the government would adopt. Why is that not the model that appears in the bill? Why have you gone with the five years rather than the best three out of five?

Ms PULFORD: When I met with the licence-holders in March this was one of the things that I said we were really open to having an ongoing discussion with them about, and I think I have outlined to the house our frustrations about how difficult it was to have that iterative conversation and to discuss that and have that level of input by the affected licence-holders. What I can indicate, though, is that at that meeting in March the licence-holders asked—and they all agreed on this, we were all in the room together—if we could count the time prior to some changes we made around the mouth of the Gippsland Lakes a number of years earlier, and I made that undertaking at the time.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thanks, Minister. But that led to a continuous five-year period rather than best of over that period, which was the expectation of where this would land.

Ms PULFORD: Well, this is precisely the type of thing it would have been good to have people participating in a discussion with us about. Of course when you are talking about 10 licences—a number that are fished a lot, a number that are not really fished much at all, at least a couple that are not actively fished and then some in between; some in businesses where the entire business model is based on this fishery, others where it is a small part of the business in question—the way you move those things around creates winners and losers within the group of 10 when the total package is the same. So that was something that we were always open to having further discussions with licence-holders about, but their representative organisation’s refusal to engage made that very difficult. To change it to three years probably would have been a better situation for some people and a worse situation for others; or to make it five and so on, if you follow. But certainly at that meeting in March when we were asked if we would count the time prior to that earlier reform at the Gippsland Lakes I was able to make that undertaking on the spot.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. I would like to move on to a different area of the bill—a different subject, away from the Gippsland Lakes buyout—so I do not know if you want to proceed to that now. I am happy to do it on clause 1.

Ms PULFORD: Do we know if there are any other questions?

Ms PATTEN: Thank you, Minister. I have just got a couple of fairly broad questions. I do not have great opposition to this bill, and I understand there has been declining stock of certainly bream and some of the other fish in the lakes. If I could just seek some clarification: one of the statements that was made in advising us about this bill was about reallocating commercial catchers to recreational fishers. We know with the Port Phillip Bay situation that we have seen some very unscrupulous activity from recreational fishers. We have seen people not respecting bag limits and the like. I am wondering if anything has been put in place in Gippsland. If this is about rebuilding the stock then the last thing we want to do is to keep depleting the stock through recreational fishing. I am wondering whether there are any measures in place to ensure that recreational fishers keep to those limits.

Ms PULFORD: I just wanted to check the timing for the fishery recovery plan. We will be commencing work on that before the end of the year. The objective here is to return the Gippsland Lakes to the great recreational fishing mecca of days of old, with all of the resultant visitor economy activity. My colleague Minister Neville made an announcement two or three weeks ago about some work underway in her own portfolio to restore the habitat. This is going to take time. I think your point is very well made. We need a healthy fishery, and having recreational fishers smashing a new recreational fishery or a soon to be recovered and restored recreational fishery does no good for anyone at all. In my experience our recreational fishers are overwhelmingly a responsible bunch that are very aware of their obligations around bag limits and catch limits and sizes and all of those things. So it is absolutely my expectation that our compliance effort will be effective, and that we will communicate to angling groups in East Gippsland and to others who travel, through all the different channels we have to communicate with people who might be interested in spending time at this fishery, about what the rules are and what the penalties are for breaching them as well.

Ms PATTEN: Thank you, Minister. That is reassuring. Obviously having attended the seafood industry’s dinner on Friday night, and like you I love all of my seafood, I am concerned that that local seafood industry is at risk. But I appreciate in Gippsland that these lakes are at significant risk of—well, we need to rebuild them.

This goes to the bait issue that was raised in Port Phillip Bay. The fact is that if we are going to stop bait fishing, then we are at risk of introducing other species. There is a biosecurity risk when we look at introducing bait from other areas. I note that in regard to the Gippsland legislation, I think, just one bait-fisher licence in Gippsland has been maintained. I am seeking some clarification because I have certainly asked you in a number of adjournments last term about why we could not keep bait fishing in Port Phillip Bay but we are keeping it in Gippsland. So I am seeking clarification as to what the difference is between bait licensing in Gippsland and bait licensing in Port Phillip Bay.

Ms PULFORD: I recognise we are probably veering a little close to being out of scope of the bill, but let me just respond to Ms Patten’s question as best I can. In terms of local seafood, less than 1 per cent of total seafood consumed in Victoria is sourced from the Gippsland Lakes. The majority of the fish caught in the Gippsland Lakes is currently taken to fresh fish markets in Melbourne. So in terms of local consumption the impact will be very minimal, but quality fresh fish continues to be available from a variety of other sources: the ocean waters, our longline fishery in Port Phillip Bay and Corner Inlet. There are still plenty of opportunities for people to fill their bellies with beautiful seafood.

We have also been exploring opportunities to create new fisheries, with a real interest and a view to being able to have greater opportunities for people around Victoria, and along the coastal areas in particular, to be able to buy something pretty much fresh off the boat, so there is some regulatory reform there. I think there is some good work we could do with the local industry around marketing and with local restaurateurs. I was recently in Port Fairy with a young woman, Bree Fox, who is an aspiring abalone diver. She is about 15 years old and a very impressive young woman, and her dad is teaching her to dive. She is an amazing ambassador for the seafood industry. Her family’s business is making use of one of these new licence opportunities, and when we met them and were talking about this we were actually doing this at a local restaurant in Port Fairy that was immediately benefiting. There is more work to do there, and we really do look forward to that, because there is nothing quite so nice as being by the seaside and being able to have fresh, locally sourced fish.

Your other question was about bait and bait licences. Look, ultimately this is a question of scale. The Port Phillip Bay bait fisher remaining in the bay I believe intends to stay for the duration of the period of that reform, so up to 2022, uses large nets and harvests many tonnes. By point of contrast, in the Gippsland Lakes four active fishers caught just 13.5 tonnes of bait using a limited range of gear. I know that for that licence-holder in Port Phillip Bay that is probably not going to be a satisfactory answer, but there is, I think, a distinction between a very large operation and a much smaller operation. Plus also our election commitment was about the 10 licences.

Ms BATH: Minister, in relation to the meeting on 9 August where commercial fishers met with Fisheries Victoria, there were a number of issues raised, and I think you have, through Mr Rich-Phillips, talked through some of those that I had questions around, but some of them looked at requesting advice on support services that could be available, and the other one of interest was requesting advice on retraining opportunities. Given that some of these fishermen and women are generational in the industry, and one in particular who has contacted me has his son and his son has a family, I am really interested for them to understand what—I guess closing the loop on those points—the government can do to retrain and provide support services in relation to the end of their careers?

Ms PULFORD: That information and advice has been provided. There was a seminar organised and held on 25 September, which I am advised was attended by licence-holders and their families, who were presented with information about the resources and support schemes that exist that they can avail themselves of.

But Ms Bath’s point is well made and completely understood. A lot of people working in this industry found themselves in this industry because they were born into it, and some of these licence-holders are multigenerational businesses, as was the case in Port Phillip Bay. This is not something we do lightly. That is why in March I did indicate my desire to have legislation to resolve this and provide certainty to the licence-holders by the conclusion of this calendar year and why we have sought to provide adequate compensation and support them through this journey, because it is tough and it is a big change. It is a big change for anyone for the circumstances of their employment to change, but we want to make sure that people have the support that they need, that they have adequate compensation and that we can be as transparent as we possibly can be in the development of this package for them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I just take the opportunity to tell the house that Port Phillip is not a bay; Port Phillip is Port Phillip. Port Phillip and Corio Bay is the correct terminology because Corio is a bay. Hobsons is a bay, but Port Phillip is Port Phillip. Using the word ‘bay’ is like saying Sydney Harbour bay or koala bear. Sorry; it is just a technicality, but having been raised in Williamstown, it has been drummed into me. It just grates every time I hear that word ‘bay’.

Ms BATH: Thank you, Deputy President. We know that koalas are not bears even though we often like to refer to them as such when we have young children who cuddle koala bears.

Minister, thank you for that response. Just for maybe closure for me, if you will, in relation to some of those services that will be available in the Lakes Entrance area, is that potentially through TAFE courses or funding? I would like to be able to provide an example to those licensees who are being bought out. Could you provide an example?

Ms PULFORD: Yes, certainly. The seminar that was organised by Regional Development Victoria that was held on 25 September was an opportunity for people to be presented with information from TAFE Gippsland; the Australian government employment service, Jobactive; the Latrobe Valley Authority worker transition service—I note we are a long way east in this area that we are talking about; and the Rural Financial Counselling Service. The LVA agreed at that session, I am advised, to be the case manager for the Gippsland Lakes commercial fishers. People will have some assistance in coordinating and navigating their way through those different organisations.

Licence-holders have also been provided with information about the Rural Financial Counselling Service and what they can do to assist along with information about Centrelink services, Jobs Victoria, the range of things that the Department of Education and Training provide and the Gippsland Jobs Hub. I think, Ms Bath, in your contribution perhaps you commented on some of the mental health issues associated with particularly challenging transitions in work or in life. People have also been provided with information about how they can connect to some of those mental health services should they be feeling particular pressure as a result of this change.

Mr QUILTY: Minister—and I would have made a speech but I missed my speech; I have been running around all day—with the compensation payment, the price on the catch is taxable with the way the payment is being treated as income, the three-year payment. I understand that this compensation payment was largely modelled on the Port Phillip scheme. That was also taxable. So why did the government pick this model where you are going to give money to the people which will then be taxed and given to the federal government? Effectively you are passing money from the Victorian taxpayers to the federal government. I understand it was open to the government to structure the compensation any way it would have liked, so why would it pick a model that made the people pay tax?

Ms PULFORD: When and how people pay tax on income is very much a matter for the federal government, but the model that we have chosen—and we were clear about this in our election commitment—was that there would be recognition of the value of the licence, recognition of the value of the gear and recognition that within the 10 businesses there would be some variance on the loss-of-income component. As I indicated earlier in the committee stage, some of those licences are fished very actively; some of them not so much. I think it is important to recognise the difference between a licence that has been very actively fished or not, and the income component has been identified by the Australian Taxation Office as income-like compensation. Ultimately that is not a decision of our government or indeed any other government but a decision of the Australian Taxation Office.

Mr QUILTY: I guess you have partly answered that. It was always a great frustration to me when I was dealing with people getting compensation from government that was taxable. Very often they were not aware when they were signing up for compensation that it would be taxable. Obviously in this scheme they should have known, but it just seems to me very strange that we would want to structure it that way when we had the option that we could have paid them in a different fashion and there would have been no tax payable.

Ms PULFORD: I am loath to get into a debate about the finer points of tax law with the member, who no doubt knows much more about this than I do, but in relation to this bill I think I have provided the context about why there are the three different components and what they represent. The ATO have issued their draft ruling. That is something that procedurally is confirmed once the compensation is payable, but we have been very upfront with affected licence-holders and their representative organisation around this. The tax ruling on Port Phillip and Corio Bay may have provided a useful insight for licence-holders about what they could expect. Of course each tax ruling is going to be seen for its individual circumstances and judged as it comes when it is finalised, but that part of this would be taxed. I do not know that it would be an enormous shock to the licence-holders.

Mr QUILTY: I will move on to something else. In clause 12 of the bill there are the inactive pilot licences getting removed—cancelled. I guess my question is: why is that necessary? What is the problem that you are trying to resolve there? And not to draw this out—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Quilty, can we just deal with the clauses before that clause? Is there anyone else that has general questions for clause 1 before we get into the specifics of clauses?

Mr QUILTY: If I do not mention clause 12, then can I still make the point? I would like to do it all here rather than as we go through.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you happy to do that?

Ms PULFORD: Yes.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

Mr QUILTY: Why are we removing inactive licences, and why 12 months? Is it going to impact on people who take maternity leave or who are absent for just over 12 months?

Ms PULFORD: Thank you for this question. This is definitely not intended to catch anybody out who might be on maternity leave or another period of extended leave.

There was a review undertaken, a departmental review of the regulatory framework for pilotage in Victoria, and the review made a number of recommendations. The review suggested that there be amendments made to enable Transport Safety Victoria to cancel licences for pilots that are out of service for more than 12 months and that do not take action to maintain their competence. This is something that is reviewable. Pilot licences are perpetual, so there is no requirement for a pilot to surrender the licence if they change their occupation or if they retire, which means the regulator might not have accurate information as to which licensed pilots are actively providing services. So it is really about having a better sense of that. The capability to remove pilots who have been inactive is about providing the regulator with up-to-date information about who is operating in the industry.

I will also just speak briefly to the process, because this is not designed to catch anyone out so much as it is to maintain an accurate book of who is doing this work. The safety director is required to serve notice on the person setting out the action being proposed and the reasons and inviting the person to submit why the action should not be taken. That person then has 28 days to respond. The safety director must then serve an additional notice on the person outlining the safety director’s decision. So, for instance, if somebody were on maternity leave, there would be the opportunity for them to make that point. If a person opposes a licence being cancelled, they are able to respond to the safety director, explaining why they should not take that action. If the safety director has taken action to cancel a suspended pilot licence following a show cause process, then that person can have that decision reviewed by the safety director. It is also able to be reviewed by VCAT.

Mr QUILTY: One more: the definition of marine premises is effectively anywhere that a boat is being repaired. It is quite an extensive thing, but from my reading of it, it could pick up anyone doing any repair work on a boat anywhere. We have been advised that that is not the intention of it.

Ms PULFORD: No, it is not. I am not sure if Mr Quilty was in the house when I spoke at the end of the second-reading debate, but I went through the reasons and the intent of this in some detail. Indeed I actually read quite some excerpts of a letter that I have written to the Boating Industry Association of Victoria after they raised the same question. I think there has been some interest in how the right-of-entry provision would be applied. Mr Quilty, if you would like I can read it all again, but if you are happy, I encourage you to just reflect on the comments that I made there. The director will be required to develop a policy. I have asked him to consult with industry and other relevant stakeholders in the development of that policy. This is really intended to have no practical, day-to-day change in the way that it works, but this broader definition was important to overcome a loophole in the coverage of the regulator in the undertaking of their duties around marine safety.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: The questions Mr Quilty has asked the minister largely addressed the matters I wanted to raise about clause 12, perhaps with the exception of asking the minister about the basis on which the 12 months of inactivity was determined as an appropriate period of time. Is that based on some international standard or other reason for determining that it be 12 months?

Ms PULFORD: The 12 months was determined through the departmental review process.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Based on?

Ms PULFORD: Let me check.

I have just sought some advice on that. I think the idea was to pick a point in time where somebody had clearly been gone and inactive for quite a while. But if Mr Rich-Phillips is agreeable, I am happy to take that on notice and provide a response to that, if we would like to keep moving. I am in the committee’s hands.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Yes, that would be fine. Thanks, Minister. If you are happy to come back to the house tomorrow or something, that would be helpful.

I would just like to finish by going back to a matter we raised earlier on the Gippsland buyout issue, and it goes to the issue of the valuer-general’s valuations. You indicated your advice was that they had not been requested by licence-holders. I have since been sent several emails from licence-holders who sought, from a Kate Simpson at the Victorian Fisheries Authority, access to the valuer-general’s valuations and several responses back from Ms Simpson indicating that they were not available. I wonder if you can reconcile that with your advice to the house that they had not been requested. Those emails from licence-holders are dated around 5 September. Here is one. There are others, again from 5 September and 2 September. So in the early September period there were a number of emails and responses from Ms Simpson at the Victorian Fisheries Authority, rejecting requests for the valuer-general’s valuations.

Ms PULFORD: There is no inconsistency there. I have indicated the reasons why we are not releasing the report in its entirety, and those requests, as I understand, were for the report in its entirety.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, seemingly the licence-holders were seeking information in respect of their own licences—

Ms PULFORD: Well, I am advised that they were not. The advice that I have is that people were not seeking individual information. I have made some undertakings about how we will follow that up today in the house, but our position has been clear on the reasons for not releasing the whole report, and the advice that I have is that requests for people to be given their own information were not received.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, I can read from one of the emails, which was sent on Monday, 9 September, at 9.31 to Ms Simpson from one of the licence-holders, which says, ‘Dear Kate’:

Let me clarify we do not want this information as we are aware it may contain personal and confidential business information that cannot be publicly released. We are asking on behalf of all licence-holders that we assessed that their personal information only be forwarded to them.

Ms PULFORD: That is different to the advice that I had received, and perhaps this is a fine point of detail about the disaggregation of a report, which I have undertaken to provide—and I have given the reasons why we have not. I note that in that email the licence-holder was not interested in the complete report, and we have undertaken that we will provide that disaggregated information to people. I was not aware of that email.

Mr HAYES: I just want to raise a couple of concerns about the health of the lakes, particularly fish stocks in the lakes. If we are taking commercial fishing out of the lakes, presumably to improve fish numbers in the lakes, have any other measures been thought about, like restricting the amount of recreational fishing in the lakes or considering, say, a moratorium on all fishing in the lakes to allow a period of regeneration, maybe on a yearly basis or during the breeding season or something like that, Minister?

Ms PULFORD: I refer Mr Hayes to my answers to Ms Patten’s earlier question around how we manage the recovery of this fishery, and I would also indicate to Mr Hayes that earlier in the committee stage I indicated that the fishery recovery plan work will commence by the end of this year—I think in December—and that Minister Neville made a recent announcement around improvements to habitat. So we take a holistic view about the recovery of this fishery. This is, I guess, the most impactful, particularly in terms of the impact on the licence-holders, but yes, this will not be the only measure to improve the Gippsland Lakes.

Mr HAYES: Thanks, Minister. Could I ask subsequent to that, through you, Deputy President: will there be any monitoring of fish stocks in the lakes subsequent to this?

Ms PULFORD: Yes, there will be.

Mr HAYES: In regard to the general health of the lakes—which seem to be in a state that is causing a lot of questions, including about the banning of commercial fishing there—what other measures have been taken to improve water quality in the lakes in regard to cleaning up the estuaries, stopping agricultural run-off or anything like that?

Ms PULFORD: That is well beyond the scope of this bill, and it is not within my immediate area of knowledge, as it falls outside of my portfolio responsibilities. I can certainly speak in general terms about the water quality issues, but I would suggest that through the parliamentary or other processes that might be a line of questioning for you to pursue with Minister Neville.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 18 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

 Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (16:18): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Roads, Minister for Road Safety and the TAC, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (16:18): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.