Fisheries Cost Recovery Standing Committee Meeting #28

Approved Minutes

1. Welcome and Introductions

• Sean  Buck - Industry
• Sue Alcock – Industry
• Gary Leonard – Industry
• Bill Allan –  Industry
• Harry Peeters – Industry
• Wayne Haggar – Industry observer
• Ian Parks – DPI
• Travis Dowling – DPI
• Bill Lussier – DPI
• James Andrews - DPI

Chair's opening statement

The Chair informed the Committee that the Minister had reaffirmed his direction that the draft prospective costs are limited to FCRSC members and advisors during the development of the prospective cost recovery system. The FCRSC has been established to work strategically on the design and operation of cost recovery. The FCRSC noted that industry attendance had been expanded at the request of the Minister to include a wider range of industry expertise to be involved in the development and implementation of the new cost recovery system, and that the preliminary data contained in the schedules would remain Committee-in-Confidence at this time. Later stages of the process, to be conducted in 2013, would involve wider industry consultation. The Minister indicated that there may be an opportunity to consult with wider industry on the costs prior to the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) being released for consultation.

2. Apologies:

• Vince Collins
• Anthony Ciconte

3. Confirmation of previous Minutes

Background
Draft Minutes of FCRSC meeting #27 of 2 November 2012 were circulated to members on 19 November 2012.

Recommendation
That the FCRSC confirms the Minutes of FCRSC meeting #27 of 2 November 2012.

Outcome
The Committee confirmed the Minutes of FCRSC meeting #27.

4. Progress on Action Items from meeting #27

Progress on Action Items from meeting #26

5. Items for discussion/noting

5(a) Deliverables/Milestones described for each fishery

Background:

DPI has previously provided the 42 schedules in which the cost recoverable services (Function, Description, Deliverables / Milestones, FTE's and costs) provided to the commercial fishing industry are described for each fishery.

Recommendation:

For discussion

Outcome:

1. The FCRSC reviewed the amended definitions for the three operational management services, and was satisfied that the definitions adequately describe those services. The 'recoverability of DPI activities and services to be provided by DPI to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture industries' document has now been ratified by the FCRSC. It was agreed that the next step is to develop and agree on the specific services to be provided to each fishery.
2. The Committee noted that DPI will be providing more detail about the relationship between cost recovery and emergency response to Committee members once it has obtained the necessary information from relevant internal stakeholders. Once approved by the FCRSC, this information will be included in the 'Guidelines for the operation of cost recovery' document. Accordingly, the FCRSC agreed to defer the resolution of this matter to a later meeting.

5(b) Guidelines for the operation of cost recovery

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee asked DPI to amend the narrative (Guidelines for the operation of cost recovery) and provide comparative data in relation to the levies paid by industry in 2011/12 for review prior to the next FCRSC meeting.

Attachment B (Guidelines for the operation of cost recovery) provides the basis on which a prospective cost recovery system will operate.

Recommendation:

That the FCRSC consider the document with a view to endorsing it as a foundation document for the new prospective cost recovery system.

Outcome:

1. Fisheries Victoria Branch representatives attended the meeting to answer specific questions regarding the detail of cost recovery services (including milestones) for each fishery.
2. The FCRSC noted the draft Minutes from the abalone cost recovery workshop had been prepared and were distributed to abalone affiliated members & advisors. The FCRSC noted that the draft Minutes from the remaining wild-catch fisheries were being prepared, and would be circulated to members in due course. The FCRSC further noted that there was a number of Action Items assigned to DPI as a result of the two cost recovery workshops.
3. The FCRSC queried why the attributable costs/services vary amongst bait fisheries. The FCRSC noted the templates require a number of amendments following the feedback provided to DPI by industry at the recent cost recovery workshops.
4. The FCRSC noted that the schedules do not address resource sharing arrangements in fisheries. They set out the best estimate of recreational versus commercial catch for use when attributing costs on the basis of take for some management and science services.
5. The FCRSC noted the methodology for the determination of compliance costs, i.e. compliance costs have been separated between recreational, illegal and commercial. As such, it is only the commercial compliance costs that are intended to be cost recovered.
6. The FCRSC recalled cost recovery principle number 1 b) equity, 'those that benefit from a government service, or contribute to the need for a service, should pay for the associated costs. Where a number of groups benefit from a service, costs should be apportioned'. (The Committee agreed that it is not possible to levy those who illegally take fish.
7. Industry sought clarification from DPI as to whether the illegal take of species had been considered in attributing research costs. DPI advised the Committee that the illegal take should only be considered if it increases the cost of conducting that service, and agreed to provide further information on the TACC setting process for quota managed fisheries.
8. The FCRSC sought further clarification from DPI as to the rationale behind setting a milestone within management of 20 business days to respond to general and research permits. Industry opined that this is too long. DPI advised the FCRSC that simple query response times are much shorter, but the upper limit is to provide for more complex queries that may require additional effort to answer such as consultation with Fisheries Research Branch.
9. DPI advised the FCRSC of its intention to conduct a further workshop with members of the abalone and rock lobster industries regarding the use of new technology such as Vessel Monitoring Systems, and how this technology could potentially reduce compliance costs such as surveillance. The FCRSC noted that the introduction of such technology could be three years away, and therefore would not impact on the prospective levies to be implemented on 1 April 2014. However, the FCRSC also noted that there would be provision within the operation of the new system to reduce any following year's levy to reflect a reduction in the extent of services provided.
10. Industry requested DPI investigate the implementation of prior reporting in a number of fisheries, as industry felt that prior reporting would be relatively easy to implement.
11. Industry opined that the draft prospective cost recovery levies were not affordable in a number of fisheries, and queried when the FCRSC would address this matter. The Committee noted the advice from the Minister in the Chair's opening statement from FCRSC #25…'To achieve a new forward-looking/prospective cost recovery system ready for a RIS in 2013, to be phased in over a period commencing 1 April 2014 in such a way that it does not 'overburden' industry, while moving towards an appropriate level of cost recovery'. The Committee acknowledged the Minister's intention that the prospective cost recovery system would be phased in, and not be over-burdensome, but would move towards an appropriate level of cost recovery. The FCRSC further noted that DPI was investigating options for consideration that could prevent the closure of fisheries due to the burden of cost recovery. The Committee noted DPI's intention to table the amended schedules at FCRSC meeting #29.

ACTION ITEM:

1. DPI to clarify the Total Allowable Commercial Catch process for quota managed fisheries to ascertain if recreational/illegal take is considered, and if so, does the consideration of illegal take increase the cost of that stock assessment.
2. DPI to provide further advice to the FCRSC regarding the steps involved in the processing of general and research applications.
3. DPI to investigate the possibility of implementing prior reporting in applicable fisheries.
4. DPI to provide further detail as to the extent of education & enforcement services to be provided to the aquaculture sector.

5(b) Potential grouping of Victoria's licence classes

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee asked DPI to group the 42 fisheries and provide to the Committee members to review. DPI provided the Committee with a draft grouping of fisheries at FCRSC meeting #27.

Recommendation:

For discussion.

Outcome:

1. The FCRSC reviewed the proposed fisheries/groupings paper provided by DPI in which 42 licence classes were reduced to 26 groups of licence classes for cost recovery purposes only. This would be achieved by 'grouping' the bait fisheries and aquaculture private land fisheries.
2. The FCRSC noted the rationale for grouping fisheries was to reduce the complexity of operation of the prospective regime, thereby reducing the administrative burden on DPI/FCRSC.
3. The Committee noted cost recovery principle number 6, 'Cross subsidisation between fishers and fisheries should be minimised'. The Committee reviewed the proposed levies under the prospective cost recovery system which indicate that if these groupings were adopted there would be significant cross subsidisation within the group.
4. The Committee noted that DPI was reviewing the proposed levy amounts for each fishery following industry feedback at the cost recovery workshops.
5. The FCRSC agreed that if the final levies for each of the fisheries within the proposed groups were of a similar magnitude, and each of those fisheries posed similar risks, thereby minimising any cross subsidisation, then the FCRSC would support the proposal to group the 'bait and 'aquaculture private land' fisheries.

5(c) Cost recoverable services (including emergency response) provided to Victoria's wild-catch and aquaculture fisheries

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee asked DPI to provide more detail about the relationship between cost recovery and emergency responses for members to review.

Recommendation:

That the FCRSC review and note the relationship between cost recovery and emergency responses.

Outcome:

1. The FCRSC noted that DPI is continuing to refine this document following advice from internal stakeholders, and that DPI will provide a discussion paper at FCRSC meeting #29.

5(d) Guidelines for the operation of cost recovery

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee asked DPI to amend the narrative as requested. The Guidelines for the operation of cost recovery, provided to members at FCRSC meeting #27 provides the basis on which a prospective cost recovery system will operate.

Recommendation:

That FCRSC consider the document with a view to endorsing it as a foundation document for the new prospective cost recovery system.

Outcome:

1. The Committee noted that DPI had received no feedback on the draft Guidelines.
2. The Committee further noted that the Guidelines would evolve as deliberations continued on the operation of the new regime.
3. The Committee agreed to review the amended Guidelines out of session and provide feedback to DPI prior to the next FCRSC meeting to enable DPI sufficient time to consider the proposed amendments to the Guidelines.

ACTION ITEM:

1. DPI to re-send the draft amended Guidelines for the operation of cost recovery to the FCRSC.
2. Industry members to review the amended Guidelines for the operation of cost recovery and provide feedback to DPI prior to the next FCRSC meeting.

5(e) DPI Overheads

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee asked DPI to provide the Committee with a break-down of the DPI overheads associated with staff in different areas.

Recommendation:

For discussion.

Outcome:

1. The Committee noted the break-down of 2011/12 DPI overheads costs associated with staff in different areas.
2. The FCRSC sought clarification from DPI as to whether the 2011/12 levies would be reduced and/or reviewed once 'Rethinking DPI' has been completed and implemented.

ACTION ITEM:

1. DPI to investigate whether the corporate overhead levies applied to each staff member by corporate finance will be reduced and/or reviewed once 'Rethinking DPI' has been completed and implemented.

5(f) 4 month progress reports to FCRSC

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee asked DPI to develop a proposal for reporting based on reporting at the level of deliverables every four months for discussion with the Committee.

Recommendation:

For discussion.

Outcome:

1. In noting the need for transparency about the delivery of cost recovered services, the FCRSC acknowledged the need for practicality and simplicity. The Committee recognised that it would be the deliverables and milestones that would be important within any year, rather than the hours or dollars which would be costly to track. The Committee reiterated the conclusion reached at meeting #26 that reporting at the fishery level would support transparency and accountability. The Chair advised the Committee that once the prospective cost recovery system was implemented, it would be a key role of FCRSC to review these fishery-level reports.
2. The Committee recommended DPI insert an additional 'reporting' column into the schedules template. This would enable relevant fishery managers to insert an update on the progress of the milestone against the cost recoverable service in that fishery, and would be easy to read for FCRSC members.
3. The Committee agreed that reporting against the milestones should occur at FCRSC quarterly meetings.

ACTION ITEM:

1. DPI to amend the 42 schedules to include a 'reporting' column for quarterly FCRSC meetings.

5(g) Licensing year and financial year

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee asked DPI to assess whether the licensing year can be moved to be in line with the financial year and provide an answer to the question "could levies be paid by industry on 1 July with the licensing year continuing to commence at 1 April?"

Recommendation:

For discussion.

Outcome:

1. The Committee noted the lack of alignment between the fishing year and the financial year causes difficulties in budgeting for fisheries services. The Committee also noted that the Government budget process is aligned with the financial year and cannot be moved.
2. The Committee further noted that licence renewal and quota authorisation can be brought in line with the financial year by the DPI Secretary. This would not require any amendments to the regulations, however a transitional licensing period adjustment would be required (for example, in the first year, the length of the licence period could be extended to 15 months or reduced to 3 months).
3. Industry members of the FCRSC did not support changing the current licensing year to align with the financial year.
4. The FCRSC discussed the possibility of introducing quarterly payments, noting the pros (cash flow) and cons (increased licence administration and debt recovery costs, which would be 100% recovered from industry under the new prospective system and the need to negotiate such an arrangement with Treasury). The FCRSC agreed that the cons outweighed the pros.

5(h) Ownership of Research Information

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee asked DPI to clarify the matter of ownership of information generated from research conducted by DPI, or an agreed service provider, where industry had paid levies relating to that service.

Recommendation:

For discussion.

Outcome:

1. DPI reminded the FCRSC that the Victorian Government provides regulatory services to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture sector in order to meet its obligations under the Fisheries Act 1995. A proportion of the costs incurred to deliver those services is then recovered from industry (the beneficiary of those services) in line with Government policy on cost recovery. That revenue goes to the consolidated fund. It is not the same as a contract entered into between two parties in the private sector. However, the FCRSC noted that it does involve similar features such as the description of services, key deliverables, providing transparency and a basis for improved reporting.
2. The FCRSC noted that in general, data collected and information generated through research conducted for the management of fisheries is owned by the State and managed by DPI. This information will continue to be publicly available where relating to stock assessment or monitoring.
3. In regard to research services delivered by DPI, the data and analysis are owned and managed by the State except for research that is directly contracted by a third party. In this instance, the third party owns the data unless otherwise stipulated in the contract.
4. Where research or information is used to inform fishery management decision making (e.g. stock assessment or setting of management controls) that information should be publicly available. This should apply irrespective of who paid for the research. If industry commissions research to inform their own thinking, they own that data and analysis. If industry want that data to be used in statutory decision making, that data and analysis needs to be provided to government and made publicly available as appropriate.
5. DPI advised the FCRSC that in certain circumstances there may be valid reasons to constrain the distribution and use of data collected and information generated. For example, where the dissemination of data or information would divulge commercial information for individuals or when privacy legislation provisions are relevant. DPI agreed to develop outline the matters that would be considered regarding the use of data collected by industry.
6. Industry expressed some concern that the provision of sensitive confidential information to DPI becoming publicly available could compromise industry's knowledge of good fishing locations, and thereby prevent industry from sharing that knowledge with DPI. The FCRSC discussed the possibility of industry providing two sets of data. One, which would be very detailed and for example, include data logger information for an abalone fishery which would be used by DPI to assist in the stock assessment and (if applicable) quota setting process, and the second, which would be broad and generic, which could be made publicly available.
7. The FCRSC discussed the provision of information such as by-catch in the eel fishery, and whether the provision of that information to DPI (therefore becoming public knowledge) was in the best interests of industry. The FCRSC noted the example of the shark fishery, and the subsequent closure of that fishery due to the withholding of by-catch information. The FCRSC agreed that the management and provision of by-catch information (i.e. being transparent) is in industry's long-term best interests.

ACTION ITEM:

1. DPI to outline the matters that would be considered regarding the use of research data collected and provided by industry to assist in the stock assessment and (if applicable) quota setting process.

5(i) Attribution of costs – quota versus licence

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee agreed to consider the attribution of costs within quota managed fisheries at a future meeting.

Recommendation:

For discussion.

Outcome:

1. Under Section 151 and 151A of the Fisheries Act 1995, levies may be charged on licences, quota units or pots (in the case of rock lobster).
2. The FCRSC reviewed a discussion paper provided by DPI that outlined how fisheries services are currently levied, and options, including the pros and cons, regarding the distribution of levy payments under the proposed new cost recovery system.
3. DPI advised that, in principle, allocation of costs in a fishery should reflect who it is that creates the need for services and who benefits from them.
4. In regard to the three abalone fisheries, industry strongly supported maintaining the status quo, i.e. a small proportion of management costs attributed to the licence holder, with the remaining costs attributed to the quota unit. The FCRSC indicated that as quota is directly linked to the licence in the scallop fishery, that the status quo should also be maintained, i.e. 100% of costs attributed to the licence.
5. The FCRSC did not provide any comment on the Rock Lobster or Giant Crab fisheries.

ACTION ITEM:

1. DPI to seek feedback on the allocation of costs within the Rock Lobster and Giant Crab fisheries from the FCRSC member affiliated with these fisheries.

5(j) Consultation regarding the level of services

Background

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee agreed to confirm the mechanism for consultation regarding the level of services and schedules at a future meeting.

Recommendation:

For discussion.

Outcome:

1. DPI tabled a discussion paper regarding the mechanism for consultation with industry on the nature and extent of services to be provided by Fisheries Victoria, including the criteria for assessing consultation options:
   1. The degree to which all affected stakeholders have the opportunity to comment on and discuss proposed services and costs (inclusiveness).
   2. The degree to which the stakeholders consulted are representative of all the persons responsible for paying cost recovery levies.
   3. The degree to which the consultation process is cost effective.
   4. The degree to which there is alignment with relevant stakeholder engagement principles.
2. The FCRSC noted the cost incurred by DPI to conduct FCRSC meeting #28 was approximately $5,000 (venue hire, catering, accommodation, sitting fees, reimbursement of travel expenses, etc.). This estimation does not include the DPI staff cost incurred to attend the meeting (seven DPI representatives attended the meeting).
3. The FCRSC agreed that holding a large number of regional forums around the State will not work (time consuming and costly), nor can the FCRSC adequately represent all 42 fisheries.
4. The Committee noted that Seafood Industry Victoria (SIV) was a permanent observer at FCRSC meetings, and that industry could raise cost recovery matters to be discussed at FCRSC meetings via SIV, although the Committee acknowledged that SIV does not represent aquaculture licence holders. DPI maintained that the FCRSC could be open to criticism for not having measures in place to ensure FCRSC industry members/advisors adequately represented all of the wild-catch and aquaculture licence holders.
5. Industry suggested that DPI could use existing organisations and meetings such as Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) meetings in quota managed fisheries, or zonal forums to consult with those particular fisheries, and that SIV would be able to consult with the remaining wild-catch fisheries via other means.
6. To implement this approach, DPI would need to assess how representative each group/meeting is to:
   1. ensure appropriate governance arrangements are in place to identify and elect representatives; and
   2. ensure the identified group adequately represents its members (gathering the views of members, assimilating and reporting back to the FCRSC.
7. DPI still expressed some concern as to whether the options considered by the FCRSC were truly representative, and that the use of DPI's website to publish the proposed service schedules, advertise the consultation period and seek written advice from affected entitlement holders could be a cost effective method of augmenting the consultation mechanisms considered.
8. The FCRSC noted that once the development and implementation of the cost recovery system had been achieved, the Committee would revert back to a more strategic role

5(k) Effectiveness of Compliance and Enforcement Activities: Department of Primary Industries and Department of Sustainability and Environment

Background:

The Victorian Auditor General's Office conducted an audit to inform the Victorian community and Parliament on whether public sector entities are appropriately administering legislation. The audit report was tabled in the Parliament on 24 October 2012, and was provided to FCRSC members on 24 October as requested. DPI accepts the recommendations contained in the audit report, and is pleased to note the audit report highlights the positive example of Fisheries Victoria's intelligence led Education and Enforcement Model, which uses a robust methodology for transparently assessing risks and planning and prioritising its compliance report.

Recommendation:

For discussion.

Outcome:

1. Mr Ian Parks, the A/Director Education & Enforcement Branch provided the FCRSC with a summary of the major findings of the VAGO report.
2. The report recommended DPI adopt an organisational approach to compliance, as opposed to individual branches (Fisheries Victoria, Game Victoria, etc.). The FCRSC noted DPI's intention to adopt this recommendation.
3. The FCRSC was pleased to note the audit report highlights the positive example of Fisheries Victoria's intelligence led Education and Enforcement Model as best practice.
4. The FCRSC noted that other jurisdictions conduct quarterly meetings between industry and the compliance branch.
5. The FCRSC noted Mr Parks' intention to report to the FCRSC on a quarterly basis regarding the overall compliance program (including information on number of prosecutions, inspections, etc.) which would cover all 42 fisheries, and that this information would also be made publicly available via the DPI website. This report would not be specific to each fishery due to the costs of doing this, i.e. the report would show the number of inspections conducted by Fisheries Officers across all fisheries, not just the Gippsland Lakes fishery. Mr Parks advised that the draft reporting template was currently being developed with the intent of releasing the report prior to Christmas, and could be provided to the FCRSC for information in due course.
6. Industry agreed that the provision of this information, both to the FCRSC and to all of industry via the DPI website was a good outcome.
7. The FCRSC agreed that compliance rates are not a good indicator of success, or otherwise, of Fisheries Victoria's compliance program, because it is an intelligence driven program that targets specific risks.
8. The FCRSC noted that other jurisdictions conduct quarterly meetings between industry and the compliance branch.

5(l) Compliance reporting by other jurisdictions

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #26, the Committee asked DPI to investigate the level of compliance reporting by other jurisdictions in regards to a cost recovery system. The Chair tabled a Committee in Confidence example abalone report from NSW at FCRSC meeting #27 to commence the discussions.

Recommendation:

For discussion.

Outcome:

1. The FCRSC noted the abalone report prepared by NSW Fisheries and provided to their equivalent FCRSC.

6) Other Business

6(a) Gross Value of Product data

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #27, the Committee asked DPI to provide the Gross Value of Product (GVP) data for each of the 42 fisheries.

Recommendation:

For discussion.

Outcome:

1. DPI provided the Committee with two GVP discussion papers (one for wild-catch fisheries and the second for aquaculture fisheries), and requested the FCRSC to review the data, and provide feedback to DPI prior to the next FCRSC meeting.

ACTION ITEM:

1. Industry members to review the two GVP discussion papers and provide feedback to DPI prior to the next FCRSC meeting

6(b) A timetable for cost recovery in Victoria to move to forward budgeting

Background:

At FCRSC meeting #25, the FCSRC discussed and agreed upon both the actions that need to be completed in order to meet the Minister's stated intention to implement a new cost recovery regime by 1 April 2014, and the timeline required to complete those actions.

Outcome:

1. The Chair outlined the actions, FCRSC meetings, and consultation processes that need to be completed to implement a new cost recovery regime by 1 April 2014.
2. The FCRSC noted that the Minister had agreed to the request of the Committee to delay the introduction of the prospective cost recovery system by 12 months from its original implementation date of 1 April 2013.
3. Some industry members of the Committee expressed reservations about meeting the timeline.
4. DPI advised that there was some flexibility in the public consultation period action item, currently scheduled for 60 days. The Committee noted that this could be reduced to a minimum of 28 days, but that when the Committee first developed the timeline at FCRSC meeting #25, it was firmly of the opinion that the public consultation period should not be reduced and should remain at 60 days.
5. The FCRSC noted that there would be a review of the new cost recovery system conducted after the first year of implementation, in which the FCRSC could address any parts of the new system that were not operating as intended. Industry requested there be a second trial year prior to the longer term cost recovery cycle (4 years) being implemented to ensure that the system was operating effectively. 
6. The Chair reminded the Committee that the FCRSC's directive from the Minister was… 'To achieve a new forward-looking/prospective cost recovery system ready for a RIS in 2013, to be phased in over a period commencing 1 April 2014 in such a way that it does not 'overburden' industry, while moving towards an appropriate level of cost recovery'. The Chair indicated that the phasing in period could also be used to better refine the new prospective cost recovery system (if required).
7. The Chair advised the Committee that the place to discuss all matters related to cost recovery was the FCRSC, including any concern with the timeline, not via correspondence to the Minister's Office.
8. The Committee agreed that whilst there is a lot of work to be done between now and 1 April 2014, it agreed to continue its efforts to work constructively on the development of the new cost recovery regime. However industry also requested that the Chair communicate their reservations about the Committee's ability to meet the timeline to the Minister, and request that the implementation of the prospective cost recovery system be delayed by a further 12 months. Industry opined that this would enable sufficient time to address every aspect of the new regime before it was implemented.

ACTION ITEM:

1. The Chair to write to the Minister advising of industry's reservations about the Committee's ability to meet the timeline, their request that the implementation of the prospective cost recovery system be delayed by a further 12 months, and their request to seek a second trial year of the new prospective cost recovery system.

6(c) Miscellaneous matters related to the introduction of a prospective cost recovery system

Outcome:

1. The Committee noted that a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) will be prepared for cost recovery changes. Some members of industry expressed concern that the levy amounts contained in the RIS would be the final amounts, and that feedback provided via the RIS consultation process would not be considered. DPI advised the FCRSC that it is committed to meaningful consultation with industry. DPI outlined the steps involved in the RIS process, and the opportunity for full and broad consultation with each and every licence holder across all 42 fisheries. The FCRSC noted that the process includes the opportunity for the FCRSC to review the feedback provided by wider industry, and provide any advice to the Minister as applicable.
2. In the end, the committee agreed that I write to you requesting that some assurances  that RIS will be an 'open' document and that there will be the  opportunity for full and broad consultation on a range of issues with each sector and each and every licence holder, with a view to revision as necessary. There seems to be some residual concerns that in the past that once figures appeared in the RIS it has proved very difficult to change them.  Understandably, industry are worried that if the very high fee increases are encapsulated in the RIS, prior to having adequate time to work with the Department to reduce costs, they may well be stuck with them and see many fisheries either closed down or made marginally viable.
3. Industry queried whether DPI was following the consultation principles outlined in Section 3A of the Fisheries Act 1995. DPI advised the FCRSC that it would more than meet the minimum responsibilities for consultation under the Act. DPI advised the Committee that the Government is committed to a transparent cost recovery process. In order to facilitate this, the FCRSC has been established which operates under an agreed Terms of Reference (TOR) between industry and Government. Moreover, the Minister, via the Chair, had requested a broadening of industry attendance at the FCRSC meetings to reflect the major fisheries, broaden the level of expertise available; and increase the level of support for its outcomes. In the short term and to expedite progress, additional attendance is being achieved using the current provision in the FCRSC TORs for advisers. As such, the Committee, at least until the review of the TORs is complete, remains an expertise-based committee, but with significant and valuable input from a wide range of industry sectors. Wider consultation with industry will also occur via the RIS consultation process.
4. Industry sought further clarification from DPI as to how the levies paid by industry in 2011/12 were displayed in the cost recovery comparison spread sheet. DPI advised the FCRSC that costs have been attributed by licence in all fisheries, except for quota managed fisheries where all costs (licence/quota/pot) are shown by quota unit for simple comparison purposes only.
5. Gary Leonard, an industry advisor from the Gippsland Lakes fishery queried why there was only one advisor from the finfish fisheries. The FCRSC noted that consultation will occur with all licence holders via the RIS process. The FCRSC further noted that the industry representatives on the FCRSC are nominated by SIV in line with the FCRSC Terms of Reference, and that industry nominees represent commercial licence holders in all 42 fisheries.
6. Sean Buck, an industry advisor from the abalone central zone advised the Committee that he did not have sufficient time to review all of FCRSC #28 meeting papers, and reiterated industry's request of FCRSC meeting #27 that DPI provide agenda papers and supporting documentation, both in soft and hard copy to members at least one week prior to the meeting to enable members sufficient time to review. Whilst DPI acknowledged that the draft agenda had only been provided three days prior to the meeting, DPI reminded Mr Buck that the supporting documentation for FCRSC #28 was provided to members & advisors on 2 November, 20 days prior to the meeting. The Committee noted the delay in providing the draft agenda was because DPI considered addressing the action items that arose from the two cost recovery workshops, and FCRSC #27 to be a higher priority than the preparation of the draft agenda.

ACTION ITEM:

1. DPI to confirm that it is following the consultation principles contained in section 3A of the Fisheries Act 1995.
2. DPI to amend the cost recovery spread sheet to include the following statement...'Costs have been attributed by licence in all fisheries, except for quota managed fisheries where all costs (licence/quota/pot) are shown by quota unit for simple comparison purposes'.
3. DPI to re-send the Marine Parks Offset Funding discussion paper to the abalone affiliated members & advisors for discussion out of session.

7) Next meeting:

Friday 14 December 2012.

Meeting closed at: 4:00pm

Action items