Nekton

Diving Tax - Will they? Won't they?

With submissions on the NSW Department of Primary Industries controversial, Scuba Diving Licence Fee Public Discussion Paper, closing on 1st December, the decision on whether or not these proposals will be implemented now rests with the Minister, Mr Ian Macdonald.

Originally proposed as a daily fee to dive in those areas set aside as Grey Nurse Shark aggregation zones, the revenue generated was to have funded a contentious captive breeding programme; an expensive experiment with no scientific credibility and one that is opposed by many conservationists who view the proposals as doing nothing to significantly improve the stocks of Grey Nurse Sharks in the wild.

Claiming that the DPI was continuing to ignore the recommendations of numerous experts, (including those whose findings appeared in reports commissioned by the Department) and that the obvious first-step in helping the recovery of Grey Nurse Sharks would be best accomplished by increasing the present sanctuary zone areas and imposing a ban on commercial and recreational fishing activities in those areas, those attending meetings with DPI representatives have been told that - as the primary group responsible for raising awareness of the impact that unrestricted fishing practices are having upon GNS habitats - divers must expect to underwrite conservation efforts by paying the government to buy-back fishing licences.

Possibly beginning to appreciate that the original tax would generate nowhere near the revenue that they had first anticipated, the Department of Primary Industries have now shifted the goal posts away from the Grey Nurse Shark conservation issue by subsequently proposing a scuba diving licence fee for all diving activities in NSW.

Failing to adequately explain how the revenue raised by this tax would be used - other than to suggest that a portion of funds would be set aside to benefit divers - the Department's poorly conducted public relations campaign to sell the concept has only managed to sour the once good relationship that existed between the diving community and the Fisheries Division of the DPI.

Previously willing to volunteer their personal time and money in supporting marine conservation initiatives and research programmes, divers attending meetings with the DPI to discuss their concerns have been left with the impression that the Department's only interest is to penalise the 'whistle-blowers'!

Disturbed by the fact that a Government Department with no obvious mandate should be seeking to control their recreational activity, many organisations and individuals have been actively campaigning to have the proposals scrapped.

Announcing their opposition to the introduction of such a fee, one Shadow Minister on the NSW Parliament's opposition benches responded to Nekton's repeated requests for a policy statement. In a letter dated 7th December 2005, he wrote to say:

"I am pleased to inform you that the NSW Liberal/Nationals Coalition opposed the Governments dive tax of $20 per day when it was first proposed in June this year and in Government, we would have moved to eliminate this harmful tax.

"The NSW Labour Government's $20 recreational diving tax was an unfair tax that severely disadvantaged and restricted scuba divers and families being able to continue to affordably dive and access marine parks."

The same Shadow Minister then went on to say:

"The NSW Government is now calling for submissions on the introduction of an annual recreational licence fee to access marine parks.

"The NSW Liberal/Nationals Coalition will not oppose the introduction of such a licence provided it has the support of industry, is reasonably priced and the revenue raised by the industry is returned to directly improve the management and conservation of marine life and recreational diving sites within marine parks."

It's a response that fails to meaningfully address any of the issues and one that raises numerous questions: The first being, what is meant by, "support of industry"? It's a particularly relevant question given the fact that the DPI's Public Discussion paper was directed not only at divers, but also called on commercial and recreational fishers, (the two 'industry' groups whose present activities would be most affected should the existing GNS aggregation zones be extended) to submit their views on the introduction of a Scuba Diving Licence Fee.

In terms of the diving "industry", as a multi-faceted activity there are many organisations that claim to represent the recreational diving industry/community. Few do; few actually see eye-to-eye with one another, and fewer still manage to adequately reflect the views of divers. Indeed, it's fair to say that their first priority is to protect and enhance their own market share.

Even assuming that all of these disparate "industry" factions with a vested interest in recreational diving actually agreed to support the introduction of such a licence fee, the question that then arises is how - exactly - does the DPI propose to, "directly improve the management and conservation of marine life and recreational diving sites within marine parks"?

These are the questions that recreational divers have been asking ever since these proposals were first mooted. To date there have been no adequate answers given. Neither has the Department released any information on how they intend to accomplish the strategies that they propose.

Now awaiting the outcome of the Department's call for submissions by parties interested in commenting on the Scuba Diving Licence Fee Public Discussion Paper, (the results of which are unlikely to be made public) the future of the Grey Nurse Shark, and of recreational diving in New South Wales, rests with the State's Parliamentarians.

While it is to be hoped that common sense will prevail, it nevertheless remains an undeniable fact that politics and conservation make poor bedfellows!

Safe Diving