|
30 September 2004
The Secretary,
Department of Treasury and Finance,
GPO Box 147,
Hobart, Tas. 7001
Attention: Joshua Graeme-Evans
Dear Sir,
2005-06 State Budget Submission
I refer to your letter dated 1 September 2004 inviting our comments to assist in the formulation of the 2005/06 State Budget.
We would also like to accept the opportunity to meet with the Budget Committee and Minister(s) and agency(s) to discuss the matters of particular concern to our industry and I confirm that our representatives will be the TFIC President Steve Gasparinatos and the TFIC Chief Executive Bob Lister.
In previous years we have provided our views on about seven or eight different issues each year but have been extremely disappointed that our carefully constructed submissions have received very little support in the actual State Budget announcements.
For this submission the TFIC Board has decided that we will bring to your attention only two matters which we consider require a priority focus and full support within the budget framework.
We therefore ask that the following matters be given very careful consideration as part of this community consultation:
DPIWE Marine Resources
It is apparent from our regular engagement with DPIWE that the Marine Resources Branch is inadequately funded to meet the needs of both Government and industry.
Currently Treasury allocates annual budget funding to DPIWE and identified priorities within the Department are then addressed. In recent years the DPIWE budget has received a real 3% reduction per annum in funding with only new initiatives given special consideration such as the Fox Taskforce, Tasmanian Devils etc.
Overall this means that the DPIWE budget is nominally increased year by year but only because of new initiative funding.
The net effect within the DPIWE is reduced services and an understandable financial squeeze that means only the highest priorities can be addressed.
This has put unreasonable pressure on existing worthwhile projects such as the FRDC and TSQAP commitments and for instance the TAFI agreement where the consolidated allocation of $2.34m is not indexed resulting in a loss of about one TAFI staff member per year and a diminished stake for the State Government in TAFI.
Additionally the personnel award structure constrains the appointment of best possible people for positions and as an example in Fish Health a pathologist position has not been filled as the offered salary is 15 – 25% less than available in other States.
Within the Marine Resources Branch some projects are not viewed by others as being of high enough priority to justify more resources. There has for instance been a continual deferral over many years of programs to develop management plans for small pelagics, commercial dive, clams and octopus, a review of the Living Marine Resources Management Act along with a full ecological assessment of fisheries including economic and social assessment and fishery habitats.
There has appropriately been high level attention given to our high value fisheries in Abalone and Rock Lobster but other areas have not received the same support due to severe resource limitations.
Within Marine Resources Wild Fishing Section there was a long and stable period with little turnover in staff but in the last three years there has been a significant turnover of personnel in the all important fishery management positions. We have observed that it is cheaper and faster to fill these positions from within rather than externally despite the obvious need for flexibility in providing the very best people to take on these positions.
Within Marine Resources Marine Farming Section the planning and operations area has unfortunately been reduced by one person to enable the combination of the most important priorities of industry development and to meet State of Growth objectives.
The Marine Resources Environmental Section has been downgraded with only minimal attention given to the auditing of chemical use, copper and zinc antifoulants etc.
It is very obvious that DPIWE and in particular Marine Resources needs more resources to employ the best people and to provide facilities to meet objectives and priorities.
There is currently no flexibility at all with a fully committed budget and with increasingly staff committed against trust funds as opposed to consolidated revenue.
The Government’s social policy in support of health, education, law reform, infrastructure (ferries, gas pipeline rollout) and the debt reduction strategy has squeezed Marine Resources Section to a very low funding base which is unsustainable.
We strongly recommend that priority now be given to addressing Marine Resource issues that have for too long been neglected and reduced in funding.
MAST Marine Facilities
MAST currently receives a budget funding allocation of $700,000 a year and this funding has remained unaltered since MAST began operations in July 1997 despite the consumer price index increasing by 20.5 % over this period.
This means that just to maintain the same level of service MAST should be receiving $843,500 this financial year. Assuming inflation continues at 2.5% this year then MAST should receive an allocation of $861,000 in 2005/06 plus compounded inflation for the last eight years just to keep pace with the increase in its operating costs since 1997.
MAST only receives funding for ongoing costs such as maintenance and does not receive any funding for capital works involved in the upgrading and reconstruction of its facilities.
A major user of these facilities around the State is the commercial fishing industry and the development of our industry is being hampered by poor and inadequate facilities.
There are a number of MAST marine facilities reaching the end of their useful life that are important to our industry and the following jetties and wharves are likely to need replacement within the next five years -
• Deepwater Jetty at Triabunna
• Outer berth and approach Dover
• Bridport Jetty
• Margate Jetty
• Kettering Jetty
• Nubeena Jetty
• Pirates Bay Jetty
• St Helens Wharf
• Southport Jetty
We believe that the time has now come to fund MAST appropriately to undertake the reconstruction of these facilities within their responsibilities and are well aware that construction costs have increased substantially in the past three years with the resurgent economy.
The cost of replacing Triabunna is estimated at $350,000 and the cost of rebuilding the inner wharf at Dover is over $150,000 so the total cost of rebuilding all of these facilities is going to run into millions of dollars over the next few years.
The Government should commit to a major increase in MAST funding as the jetties and wharves are also important to the economic well being of the many small communities in regional Tasmania who depend upon our industry.
In recent years MAST has received one off contributions from the State Government’s Infrastructure Fund. While these have been welcome they do not provide sufficient certainty for MAST or industry to make the necessary commitment to investment that will ensure the growth potential of our industry.
Given the high level of future capital upgrading that must be undertaken our recommendation is that MAST’s annual funding allocation should be at least doubled until the rebuilding of these important facilities is completed.
In addition to regular maintenance and rebuilding of facilities there are a number of other activities where MAST should be involved but currently has insufficient funds to carry out. Primary of these is the need to maintain safe access to the ports of Bridport and St Helens and to keep open the passage through Marion Narrows and the Denison Canal at Dunalley.
With the successful reopening of the scallop fishery Bridport and St Helens are seeing a resurgence of fishing activity and this is particularly welcome as scallop beds are open for fishing at the same time that the rock lobster fishery slows or is closed. This means that the industry, fishermen and processors are able to operate more productively and further boost their regional economies.
Both St Helens and Bridport have barways and recent works by the State Government has seen both barways kept open through dredging however funding for dredging has been piecemeal. The Government should make a commitment through an additional funding allocation to MAST to see that this work is undertaken on a regular and sustained basis.
We understand that the Government committed $157,000 to the dredging of St Helens barway and recommend that as a minimum the Government should provide MAST with a continual indexed allocation of $100,000 each year to keep these barways open and to ensure safe access to these ports.
The fishing industry is very important to Tasmania’s economy however the industry must continue to undertake considerable long term investment in new vessels and equipment as well as moving to new safety standards etc to ensure a profitable future and future economic growth.
Industry investment demands continuity and certainty of funding by Government in fishing wharves and jetties and safe access to ports to encourage this financial commitment.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this submission.
Yours faithfully,
R.K. LISTER
Chief Executive
|