Key insights. Nationally, consolidated revenue remains the principal revenue source for recreational fishing in Australia. However, there is considerable variability between jurisdictions, as some States have revenue instruments that are independent of “at risk” Government consolidated revenue funds. For example: ▪ NSW and Victoria are the only States with ‘all waters’ or general RFLs; ▪ Tasmania requires RFLs for inland water fishing, but sea fishing licences are required only for specified high value marine species and fishing methods (net fishing); ▪ Western Australia also has recreational licences for freshwater fishing, but only in the south west region, and like Tasmania, it has sea fishing licences only for high value species. Western Australia continues to rely on consolidated revenue for around 80% of its recreational fishing revenue; ▪ Queensland has an angling fee (SIPs) only for specified freshwater dams. In addition, boat registration fees include the PPV levy, the proceeds of which go to recreational fishing management and facilities. Like Western Australia, Queensland remains heavily reliant upon consolidated revenue; ▪ South Australia has registration fees for specific fishing gear, i.e., rock lobster pots and mesh nets. However, Around 82% of total recreational fishing sector funding is sourced from consolidated revenue; and ▪ the Northern Territory, and the ACT do not have licences or permits for recreational fishing for revenue raising purposes, although their introduction has been considered by the ACT. There are several reasons for this variability in funding sources between the States and Territories: 48 Pers. comm. with a representative of Recfish West. ▪ political opposition to RFLs: has been a key element in several States/Territories. In South Australia, lack of support at the political level appears to have stymied attempts to introduce licences – proposals to introduce a licence, put forward by PIRSA and supported by SARFAC, have not been acted upon. Conversely, political support has assisted the introduction of strategic revenue instruments in some jurisdictions. For example, a survey of US jurisdictions indicated that States that were able to implement ‘tackle taxes’ had strong support at the political level.49 ▪ Treasury resistance to tax instruments: While Queensland has the State-based PPV levy, there are no tax-based instruments designed to raise revenue specifically for recreational fishing in Australia. As explained in Section 8.2, su...
Key insights. Differences in the nature of recreational fisheries between jurisdictions may affect the applicability of certain revenue instruments to the Australian context. For example, freshwater licences in the UK, Ireland, France and the Netherlands raise significant revenues for recreational fishing in those countries. However, in Australia, the NRIFS found that 80% of total national fishing efforts are concentrated in coastal, estuarine and offshore waters, compared with only 20% in freshwater rivers, lakes and dams, which is likely to limit the effectiveness of freshwater-only licences as revenue raising instruments in Australia. Tasmania’s freshwater licences with cover all types of freshwater recreational fishing do not raise significantly more revenue than do its saltwater licences, which apply only to limited high value marine species and types of fishing, despite the fact that freshwater licences cost around $17.25 more than sea fishing licences. In 2006-07, Tasmania’s IFS sold 28,660 freshwater licences, which raised $1.4 million, whereas DPIW Tasmania sold 58,966 recreational sea fishing licences, and raised $1.06 million. There are also institutional impediments to the adoption in Australia of some strategic revenue instruments used in other countries – e.g. the Netherlands and France both have comprehensive recreational licence systems for freshwater fishing that raise sufficient revenues for recreational fishing management in those countries, but applicability to Australia is limited by the institutional differences between the countries, as fishing rights are privately owned in the Netherlands and France, unlike Australia. Finally, as noted in Section 7, there is strong resistance to tax-based revenue-raising instruments for the recreational fishing sector in Australia. While the use of a GST-based “tackle tax” has been raised, both the former Xxxxxx Liberal Government and the current Xxxx Labor Government have voiced opposition to this approach, as have recreational fishers, and the Department of Treasury.81 Other funding instruments used in the US, such as income tax check-offs, are unlikely to find favour here, given that they increase the complexity and costs associated with tax administration, and do not provide much certainty in terms of revenue raising.
