Future Field Services
Locations for
Fisheries Officers and
Regional
Investigators
DPI Fisheries Victoria - 2008 to 2018
Submission FINAL
Fisheries Officer Association - CPSU
15 July 2008
(Recommendations and table updated June 2010)
1
INTRODUCTION
2
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The Victorian Government has a whole of
government approach to achieving Ecologically
Sustainable Development (ESD).
The scope of this submission is limited to Field
Services - Fisheries Officers & regionally based
Fisheries Investigators.
The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) delivers
ESD outcomes for the fishing and aquaculture
industries through its fisheries division, Fisheries
Victoria.
The Objectives are to:
1. Provide an overview and rationale for current
and future locations providing field delivery
of fisheries compliance and management
services in Victoria.
Fisheries Victoria’s Positioning Statement defines its
vision of success as follows:
2. Outline minimum standards for staffing levels
at stations.
'To develop and manage Victoria’s fisheries resources
within an ecologically sustainable development (ESD)
framework - to ensure fish now and for the future.’
3. Provide recommendations for current/short
term, medium (2-3 years) & long term (4
years+) goals for station locations.
The Statement outlines three strategic themes that
Fisheries Victoria will pursue to achieve this mission.
4. Provide information to support maintenance
of career path and operational capacity for
Fisheries Officers and regionally based
Fisheries Investigators.
1. Securing the fish
2. Sharing the fish
3. Growing the value
Taken together, these themes define the strategic
direction for Fisheries Victoria.
Securing the fish
3
BACKGOUND
A document titled ‘7 February 2006 Review of
Fisheries Victoria’s Field Services Operational
Framework’ (The review) was raised by FV managers
at Roadshows in 2007 as a review document.
Success
= fish for
now and
the future
(ESD)
Growing the
value
On 23/10/07 the Community & Public Sector Union
(CPSU) sent a letter to Kathy Duffy (cc: Peter
Appleford) requesting release of the ‘7 February 2006
Review of Fisheries Victoria’s Field Services
Operational Framework’ to CPSU and Fisheries
Sharing the
fish
Figure 1: Fisheries Victoria’s strategic framework
The role of regionally based Fisheries Officers and
Investigators is vital to the success of the strategic
direction. The location and numbers of officers is
integral to this success.
Officers. CPSU further requested DPI provide
information in accordance with clause 9
“Implementation of Change” of the VPS Agreement
2006”
On the 12/12/07 the Fisheries Officers Association
(FOA) executive requested permission from the
Director of Field Services (DFS) to distribute the
review to all members. The DFS gave permission
and the FOA executive provided the review to all FOA
members by email 13/12/2007.
The review recommendations, if implemented, would
result in the loss of Fisheries Officer numbers across
the state, resource losses such as vehicles, closure of
stations and relocation of existing stations. The
review recommendations, if implemented, close
Fisheries stations at Bendigo, Tatura, Wodonga,
Colac, Horsham, Ballarat and Traralgon. It moved
Geelong, Melbourne and Mornington to Queenscliff,
St Kilda and Rosebud respectively.
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
2
On 26/02/2008 an email was sent to Fisheries
Officers from the DFS ‘Subject: 2008 and BeyondFuture Locations’. It considered the locations at
Ballarat, Traralgon, Alexandra and the relationship
between Apollo Bay and Colac.
On the 04/03/08 the FOA executive requested further
clarification from the DFS in regards to his email
dated 26/02/08.
A letter was sent from DPI to CPSU dated 7 March
2008 and titled ‘Implementation of Change-Proposal
to review Fisheries Victoria current office locations’.
The letter included ‘The implications are that
Fisheries Victoria will need to consolidate some
existing work teams into groups of 4 officers. This
will most likely involve the amalgamation and
rationalisation of some existing offices such as
Horsham/Swan Hill, Ballarat/Bendigo,
Wangaratta/Wodonga, Alexandra/Tatura, Apollo
Bay/Colac and Traralgon/Yarram’.
On 10/03/08 the DFS sent an email to Field Services
staff ‘Subject-Future Field Service locations’ with
additional information including ‘...the long term aim
to establish work groups with a minimum of four
fisheries officers’ and ‘Moving to grouping fisheries
officers in 4 person work groups will involve
considering the options for all locations where there
are currently less than 4 and locations immediately
adjacent to those 2 and 1 person stations’. This
As a result Fisheries Victoria (via the DFS) and the
Fisheries Officer Association (via the FOA Executive)
communicated. The DFS allowed a number of
Fisheries Officers to meet to enable them to begin
work on a submission in regards to future locations
for Fisheries Officers. The Fisheries Officers agreed to
produce one submission. This is that submission.
4
ORGANISATIONAL PROFILE
Fisheries Victoria is comprised of approximately 210
staff located at over twenty metropolitan and
regional offices. Whilst staff roles are varied, all
individuals contribute to achieving the objectives of
the Fisheries Act (1995).
Currently the Field Services division of Fisheries
Victoria is made up of approximately 100 staff of
which approximately 60 are Senior Fisheries Officers
(SFO) and Fisheries Officers (FO). This does not
include the current 12 SFO/FO positions which have
not been filled when vacated which, if filled, would
account for 72 SFO/FO positions in the field.
email notified of meetings to be held at Colac on
13/03/08 and Snobs Creek on 14/03/08.
Fisheries Officers who attended the meetings at
Colac on 13/03/08 and Snobs Creek on 14/03/08
were reassured that Fisheries Victoria was
undertaking a review of future locations and that no
decision had been made and that no officer would be
forced to move. Fisheries Officers were further
informed that the managers had not reached
agreement between themselves as to future
locations, although some preferences were provided.
Fisheries Officers were encouraged to provide
information to the DFS including the benefits of 2
person stations.
Fisheries Officers at these meetings expressed their
disappointment at the lack of consultation to that
date and asked to be consulted and have the
opportunity to offer positive suggestions and to
provide information to enable good decision making.
Fisheries Officers further expressed their hope that
they could work collaboratively in any reviews to
ensure that factual and current information is taken
into account and that managers and field staff work
together to improve service delivery with all
information available.
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
5
HISTORY OF REVIEWS &
COMMITMENTS
The names of the Departments, sections, areas and
locations have been reviewed many times in the
past. Prior to the DPI there was the Department of
Conservation Forests & Lands, Department of
Conservation & Environment, Conservation & Natural
Resources and Natural Resources & Environment.
Many current Fisheries Officers were Fisheries and
Wildlife Officers. In 1999 Fisheries and Wildlife
Officers split to become either Fisheries OR Wildlife
Officers. A review of locations was also conducted
and the location played a significant role in
determining whether a position became a Fisheries
location or a Wildlife location based on the resource
needs at these locations.
3
The All Waters Recreational Fishing Licence was also
introduced in 1999. Prior to this there was an inland
recreational fishing licence. The introduction saw 10
additional Fisheries Officer positions and a review
was conducted to determine the placement of these
positions based on the location of specific fish
resources.
In 2002 the Victorian Government introduced Marine
National Parks and Sanctuaries under the National
Parks Act. With this, the Victorian Government gave
an undertaking to create approximately 21 additional
Fisheries Officer and Investigator positions across the
state including the opening of a coastal station at
Apollo Bay. Compensation was sought and gained by
the commercial Rock Lobster industry with the
introduction of MNP & Sanctuaries due to the loss of
significant fishing grounds. The commercial abalone
industry made similar claims but compensation was
not provided. The Victorian Government gave the
undertaking of creating additional Fisheries Officer
and Investigators positions to be strategically placed
in the field to improve compliance in regards to
abalone and ensure increased abalone resource
availability outside of the Marine Protected Areas for
abalone licence holders.
In 2003 The Department of Natural Resources and
Environment split into two Departments, the
Department of Sustainability and Environment and
the Department of Primary Industries. Once again a
review of locations and positions was undertaken
basing the locations on specific needs according to
the fisheries resources.
validated by several studies by the Australian
Institute of Criminology (National study of crime in
the Australian fishing industry report #76 and
reference documents). As the value of fish resources
rise and stocks decline attracting more organised
crime to the industry, the consideration of a
reduction in FO numbers at key locations and
reduction of overall critical mass is counter to the key
points raised in many of these authoritative studies in
this area.
The delivery of fisheries compliance across the State
is complex. There is a great deal of variation in the
profile of work undertaken. Similarly, there is
variation within the delivery of FV services. Reasons
for this include geography, variations in client base
and officers’ local knowledge.
Such behaviours are highlighted and encouraged in
the ‘Future Directions Paper’ (pg 10) “The geographic
structure within the regions delivers a good spread of
field services coverage for Victoria. It also ensures
that important local flavor is included in the
management of issues. This helps foster strong
community relationships and develops and maintains
valuable local knowledge.”
Therefore, as recognised the ‘one size fits all model’
is not the most effective way to provide service
delivery state-wide.
Unfortunately, FV has never had the resources in
compliance to ‘over’ service any issue or stakeholder
sector. An example is in the challenge of recreational
fishing compliance. In 2003, recreational contacts
were around 30,000 per year (DPI statistics). The
Victorian Recreational Fishing population is estimated
at 550,000 people (National Recreational Fishing
Survey -FRDC Project No99/158). If these people
only fished once a year (average 6.37) it would be
over 18 years before they would have contact with a
Fisheries Officer (assumes 72 FOs – 2003 level).
Recreational inspections as a percentage of the
fishing population are very low. This is exacerbated
in inland communities where ‘43% of all recreational
fishing occurs (in inland waters)’ (Pg 29 3.2.1 Inland
‘Future Directions Paper’).
6
BIG PICTURE
Effective and efficient fisheries compliance is a major
goal for DPI Fisheries Victoria (FV). It is also the
major goal of Fisheries Officers.
Fisheries Officers play an integral role in achieving
compliance across various fisheries sectors as is
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
Another factor to be considered is that the fishing
participation rate in most rural communities is over
20%, compared to the Metropolitan area where
participation rate is just over 10%. This combined
with the fact that many Metropolitan based anglers
fish in rural locations, indicates that the recreational
sector is significantly underserviced.
The recreational fishing population is increasing and
there is a demographic shift to regional Victoria.
“Demographic studies estimate that 4 million baby
boomers will retire in Australia over the next 10
4
years. It is anticipated that many of these will opt for
a sea/tree change. In other words, many are
expected to relocate to coastal or regional Victoria.”
(Future Directions Paper, Page 6)
In addition to the above, the cessation of the
commercial inland native fishery in the Murray
Darling Basin has put a significant pressure on
resources required inland to ensure compliance with
the legislation. Similarly, commitments are regularly
made in regards to the 13FISH reporting hotline for
fisheries crime and there is a public expectation in
regards to these commitments.
FOs are currently doing the best job they can with
the resources they have. Increasing population and
participation in fishing, inland fishing stocks at their
most vulnerable, a large part of the population that
may not fish but choose to eat fish from a
commercially sustainable fishery, coupled with
fisheries crime being viewed as ‘low risk, high return’
should see FO numbers and locations increasing –
not decreasing.
The afore mentioned represents a minimum
standard and should in no way prevent FO/FI
numbers greater than these where it is required.
This is the best model for DPI-FV Field Services to
provide the minimum level of service delivery that
addresses community expectations, occupational
health & safety and efficient / effective compliance.
8
EFFECTIVE & EFFICIENT FISHERIES
COMPLIANCE - INLAND
A number of well positioned two person stations
(based on previous reviews) are still the most
effective and cost efficient way of providing Fisheries
service delivery to inland areas.
By consolidating two stations into one location, FV
will lose or reduce many of the facets that form part
of effective and cost efficient service delivery.
Whilst it is true that with normal leave commitments,
potentially for two months of the year only one
person is available, this does not mean for that
period of time the station is ineffective.
Currently this does mean that the station involved
may work with adjoining stations. Such station
interaction also occurs when there are two staff on
duty and is very positive for the development of new
and experienced staff.
7
STAFFING LEVELS FOR FISHERIES
LOCATIONS – MINIMUM STANDARDS
Fisheries Officers’ believe, based on long standing
experience, that to have an effective and cost
efficient service delivery profile, the following
minimum staffing standards must be applied and
maintained at all times:
 Inland stations staffed at a minimum of 1
Senior Fisheries Officer(SFO) & 1 Fisheries
Officer (FO);
 Coastal stations staffed at a minimum of 1
SFO & 3 FOs;
 ‘High volume’ coastal stations (Port Philip)
staffed at a minimum of 1 SFO and 5 FOs.
 Where no FOs are present at a location to
assist a Senior Fisheries Investigator (SFI),
the station should be staffed at a minimum
level of 1 SFI and 1 Fisheries Investigator
(FI).
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
Even though adjacent stations work together on a
regular basis, more than 80% of the compliance
work done in an area is achieved by the local station
(i.e. local ground work and information). It is a
combination of local knowledge and community
contact that helps achieve an effective compliance
outcome.
Fisheries compliance is a dynamic area and major
issues could occur anywhere in Victoria over the next
twenty years. We do know that fisheries crime
revolves around the resource and people and the two
don’t have to be in the same location. We already
have coastal bait species heading inland and inland
species sold in capital cities in three states.
Such an issue is identified in the Future Directions
paper on Pg 30
“Market Trends:
Market Hypothesis
 Increased potential returns from fish theft
due to rising value
Market Trend Impact on Fisheries Victoria:
 Increased sale of recreationally caught
species
5

Increasing incentive for organized criminal
activity in fish markets
4.2.1 Fisheries Victoria’s authorizing
environment (Political)
 Increased political pressure from industry to
eliminate illegal take”
The risk in reducing inland stations by
closure/amalgamation from the current regional
locations is that FV will not have enough local
knowledge and community contact to provide
effective compliance outcomes.
The cost of servicing larger geographical areas would
be enormous as fuel costs are unlikely to go down
and general expenses will increase. This alone will
out weigh any cost saving by a reduction in locations.
To keep up with changing trends FV is best served by
representation in more inland locations rather than
less. Opportunities should be investigated to make
certain this occurs in a timely fashion.
It is worth remembering that FV invests $1million per
annum on fish production to stock inland waters and
that recreational fishing as a whole is worth over
$400 million per annum to Victoria (National
Recreational Fishing Survey - FRDC Project
No99/158). In addition there are key remnant native
fish stocks under pressure. FV has a responsibility to
ensure that we adequately resource inland locations
to ensure the sustainable use, security and sharing of
fish.
same area of responsibility. This is operational only
and does not consider the costs associated with
relocating SFO/FO’s or establishment and ongoing
service costs.
This is based on the assumption that two SFO/FOs
would routinely work in the area of the closed station
2 days per week.
Additional costing
 Vehicle mileage to travel from the
amalgamated station to the closed station.
150km X2(there and back) X 2 days
X 52 weeks X$.60/km= $18,000 and
ongoing
 Vehicle mileage to travel and stay 1 night
and travel home the next day
150km X 2 (there and back) X 52
weeks X 2 persons X $200 (accom +
meals) =$29,800 and ongoing
 EFT down time to travel assuming it takes
1.5hours to travel 150km.
2(Officers) X1.5hr X 4 (there and back 2
days) = 12 hrs per week.
EFT down time = 12/38 (weekly hrs of 1
EFT) = .32EFT
As a percentage of a 4 person stations
weekly time allocation this represents
a minimum 12hrs/152hrs= .08 reduction in
station effectiveness or a minimum 8% of
time per week spent on travel just to the
closed station.
Possible savings
There may be some savings as to
rationalizing equipment but, over the lifespan
and depreciation value of that equipment, it
would only be a minor annual saving.
Vehicles numbers may reduce but any
reduction will impact on overall station
effectiveness and will generate down time.
9
8A
EFFECTIVE & EFFICIENT FISHERIES
COMPLIANCE – INLAND COSTS
SCENARIO
The following compares the operational cost
effectiveness between two stations that have two
FOs (1SFO/1FO) at each station and are centrally
located in their area of responsibility, 150 km apart,
with one station (after the closure of the second
station) that has four FOs (1SFO/3FO) covering the
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
EFFECTIVE & EFFICIENT FISHERIES
COMPLIANCE - COASTAL
There are currently 10 FV coastal station locations for
FOs. Their placement represents the optimum
locations (based on previous reviews) to provide
effective and cost efficient compliance services. They
are geographically well spaced, and are located in
areas with ‘priority species’ issues, concentrations of
commercial and recreational activity, a high number
of 13FISH calls and a high incidence of marine fish
resource use and/or protection (MPAs).
The rationale for the establishment and maintenance
of coastal stations is clear and supported by client
groups and other agencies alike.
6
The minimum staffing level of 4 Officers at a coastal
station has been acknowledged by FV management
in many forums and is supported by FOs.
There are 5 locations that have staffing levels above
4 Officers and have a current need for such. Metro
station displays a clear requirement for an increased
number of officers. The balance of stations
represents an appropriate spread of resources as
needed. Lakes Entrance and Warrnambool are
strategically well placed locations for increased
resources above the minimum standard.
Whilst the review did not recommend the closure of
any coastal stations, correspondence and verbal
comments from FV management have since raised
the possible closure of Apollo Bay. The closure of
any coastal stations would have a detrimental impact
on FVs ability to achieve its core compliance
priorities. Location closures will reduce FVs profile
within the community, remove intelligence gathering
capacity and remove the deterrent aspect of having
locally based officers. The Apollo Bay Fisheries Office
provides the only recent example of how the
establishment of a strategically placed station had an
immediate deterrent effect with the area of
operations. Anecdotal evidence shows the effect was
dramatic.
10
COASTAL / INLAND STATION
INTERACTION
There have been efficiencies gained by the
placement of several inland stations within a
reasonable proximity to the coast. Stations have
become mutually supportive.
It is well established that the Colac, Ballarat,
Horsham and Traralgon stations provide regular
assistance and support to a wide range of coastal
stations (Geelong, Metro, Apollo Bay, Cowes, Yarram,
Lakes Entrance, Warrnambool and Portland).
Bendigo, Alexandra and Tatura are all based within 2
hours of Melbourne. For example, Bendigo FOs can
be at Metro station at Altona in 1 hour 20 minutes.
This is the same drive time for normal regional
patrols.
Conversely, coastal stations have been able to
provide support for inland stations when the needs
arise. All this is achieved without loss of focus in any
particular area of operations.
Many, if not all, the comments made in Section 8 are
valid when discussing the future of coastal stations.
Additionally it is relevant to note that the relocation
of Apollo Bay to Colac would involve FOs undertaking
travel (down time) of between 2 and 3 hours every
day (x 2 FOs) minimum to carryout coastal duties.
This has been done before and is not an effective
and cost efficient service delivery for FV. The travel
downtime to the coast would equate to a minimum
of 25hours per week for only 2 FOs.
The review recommended the closures of a number
of inland stations, several of which are adjacent to
coastal stations. It is assumed that if these stations
are closed (specifically Traralgon and Colac), FOs
from the nearest coastal stations would take up their
many and diverse responsibilities, as well as the
geographic area. As the review and subsequent
correspondence have not recommended an increase
in officer numbers at the coastal stations, the
additional responsibilities and geographic area can
only have a detrimental effect on delivery of services
by FV.
The ever evolving responsibilities of FOs, e.g. the
Apollo & Beagle Commonwealth Marine Reserves in
Apollo Bay’s and Yarram’s areas of operations,
coupled with the implementation of new Fisheries
Regulations and protecting the recovery of valuable
marine resources affected by disease and overfishing, provides ongoing opportunities to sustain and
increase the staffing in coastal locations.
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
11
STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND CAREER
PATH
The review proposed the closure of 7 office locations
(Bendigo, Tatura, Wodonga, Colac, Horsham, Ballarat
and Traralgon) and the loss of 5 Senior Fisheries
Officer positions (substantive). By any measure,
reductions of this magnitude would severely limit
staff development and career opportunity for FOs.
The recently introduced ‘functional model’ within
Field Services has significantly decreased career
opportunities for FOs. As the functions within Field
Services evolve, they will increasingly specialise and
have their own staffing base – narrowing the
opportunity for FOs to ‘change’ career path into
another function within Field Services at a senior
level.
7
The current overall strategic management decisions
in relation to our valuable fisheries resources are
generally made at Head Office in Melbourne. Whilst
there are some processes in place to gain the
knowledge, experience and recommendations from
FOs, there could be significant improvements to FV
service delivery in this area. FOs have a particular
level of knowledge and expertise gained from
exposure to fisheries issues in the field that is
beneficial to fulfilling roles in FV Head Office.
The current situation of the centralised location of
Head Office roles does not provide an attractive
career path for FOs. There is a general reluctance
amongst FOs to move into roles at Head Office. The
rationale for this reluctance is not necessarily the
tasks, but more generally the issues related to
moving and living in Melbourne. A solution to this is
to look for opportunities to locate these positions in
the regional centres based around current office
locations. Even if they are not filled by FOs the
benefits of being located in the regions and having
regular contact with FOs are significant to improving
FV service delivery.
Currently, Officers find themselves limited to career
aspirations of attaining the very small number of
vacancies that occur at the SFO or Operations
Manager role.
In Northern Region there is a practice of remotely
supervising FOs. This practice puts DPI-FV at risk in
relation to OH&S. Whilst this currently occurs in two
locations, they are areas that have significant
geographical distances to cover. A simple and
achievable solution is to ensure that all locations
have a SFO at all times. This also increases career
opportunities for FOs across the state. The minimum
standard of having at least 1 SFO at every location
will not only improve career paths, but it will
establish and appropriately remunerate officer
responsibilities in those locations.
12
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY
O
Occupational Health and Safety was raised in
correspondence as one of the reasons for
investigating closure/amalgamation of 2 person
stations.
Inland stations currently have a large geographical
area of responsibility. Closure/amalgamation of
these stations would increase the distances that
remaining stations would be apart. The further
stations are apart the more difficult and expensive it
is to deliver basic services, interact with other
stations, provide service delivery to key clients and
ensure effective and cost efficient fisheries resource
management. All this contributes to increased
pressure on FOs who are the people on the ground
delivering services.
Currently when a person is away from a 2 person
station there is increased effort to work with other
locations. This is extremely positive for group
dynamics, structure and support. It creates an
encouraging team atmosphere within a highly
constructive working environment. This is possible
because of the geographical placement of the current
locations.
There is also currently a large amount of work that is
done within the framework of the Risk Management
Policy.
Another safety issue to consider is the increase of
time on the road staff would be required to spend if
the stations are closed. DPI has identified driving as
one of the highest risks faced by employees.
Increased time on the road leads to an increased
likelihood of being in an accident. “Driver Fatigue, or
tiredness, contributes to many hundreds of deaths
and injuries on our roads every year. It has a role in
up to 30% of fatal crashes and up to 15% of serious
injury needing to go to hospital. Driver Fatigue can
be just as deadly as drink driving or excessive speed”
(Australian Transport Safety Bureau: Fatigue – The
Hidden Killer – booklet.)
In regional areas there is an increased likelihood of
vehicle/animal impacts in early mornings, evenings
and nights. If there are closures/amalgamations of
stations, FOs will have an increased geographical
area to cover. This would increase travel time and
the possibility of vehicle/animal impacts.
In all locations where station closures/amalgamations
have been suggested the result would be a massive
increase of FO time on the road with the proportional
increase in cost and risk to safety.
An increase in travel time also leads to staff spending
increased times away from home (reduction in the
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
8
work life balance), increased ‘down time’ due to
increase time travelling, reduced time spent on FV
business, higher vehicle costs (fuel and
maintenance), increased vehicle changeover (km
reached quicker resulting in an increased $ spent on
lease costs and changeover) and increased likelihood
of injury due to decreased physical activity from
sitting in a vehicle for greater periods of time.
review proposes the closure of Ballarat and makes no
mention of Mildura. Both Ballarat and Mildura have
significant fisheries matters requiring resources in the
respective local areas. Ballarat also has a significant
political and community requirement for Fisheries
Victoria presence. Mildura stands out as being a
regional centre closest to large scale ongoing native
fish enforcement matters.
In OH&S terms a risk analysis should be conducted
to determine level of risks associated with any
closure/amalgamation of stations to determine
impacts before any decisions are considered or
made.
14
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community contact and engagement is essential in
the effective transfer of messages and social change.
Regulations in themselves do not work without the
accompanying change in community attitude which is
achieved through education.
In addition to the variety of educational services and
community participation that Fisheries Officers
routinely undertake, FV is about to embark on
significant changes to the recreational regulations.
It is also impossible to have any deterrent without
presence and contact in a community as noted in the
‘Future Directions Paper’ (pg 30),
13
CLIMATE CHANGE AND
DEMOGRAPHICS
Two of the factors outlined by FV as influencing the
future work team structure were climate change and
demographics.
The effects of climate change are yet to be fully
realised or precisely understood. So whilst it should
be a consideration in forward planning it should not
influence the location of FOs in the near term (<5
years).
The review proposes to retain only 3 inland station
locations as opposed to the current 10. By
concentrating resources in only three locations FV is
accepting a major strategic risk. FV is gambling that
these three locations are best placed when climate
change is factored in. The cost of getting it wrong is
potentially huge.
A precautionary strategy for dealing with climate
change would be to spread the risk. Having a
distribution of 10 inland stations spreads the risk and
better allows for transitions of staff and resources to
other stations should climate change prove to make
some inland stations unviable in the distant future.
Demographic changes noted in the review suggest
that several key regional cities are expected to grow.
The cities of interest in terms of future population
growth are Bendigo, Ballarat and Mildura. The
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
Perceptions of Fisheries Victoria’s public value
(Stakeholder relationships)
 Effectiveness in eliminating illegal markets
will be linked to stakeholder support
Further to this “Fisheries Victoria has partnerships
with various agencies and on various levels. These
include Vic Pol, DSE, PV, various CMA’s to name a
few. These partnerships provide an opportunity for
Fisheries interests to be fostered, and can lead to a
more integrated approach to issues of particular
interest to Fisheries.” (‘Future Directions Paper’: pg
11).
Fisheries Officers local relationships are fundamental
in nurturing these types of agencies, ensuring FV
needs are being met.
Having Fisheries Officers placed throughout regional
communities, as they currently are, provides
Fisheries Victoria with client confidence.
Stakeholders understand the intimate knowledge of
the local area enforced by FOs and expect local FV
staff to share that knowledge. They trust that staff
will give them a fair hearing and ensure their
information is considered when making management
decisions. This in turn assists in management with
stakeholder engagement.
Fisheries Officers can often deal with local arising
issues directly providing FV with quality information
and an increased profile in the community.
9
By reducing stations and Fisheries Officer numbers
FV faces the major risk of reducing its capacity within
the regions and its relevance and support within local
communities, client groups and relevant government
agencies.
15
OFFICE LOCATIONS
The number and distribution of office locations
should provide the right network for FV service
delivery regardless of the type of location.
In areas where FV offices occur in DSE/DPI or all of
Government Offices they provide excellent service
delivery, as they often provide a high profile shop
front attendance and share with other functions and
departments whom can often assist one another with
improved service delivery. This creates many work
efficiencies for FV.
Fisheries Officers acknowledge that there are many
benefits to the all of government approach to office
facilities.
However, every location is unique and there are also
benefits to having Fisheries Officers in locations
where an all government facility is not present.
These locations are ones that are required to provide
service delivery on behalf of Fisheries Victoria and
are often located in regional areas that have a
specific need due to the fisheries resources, client
groups, fisheries crime and geographical location.
These types of offices provide a presence and service
delivery where it is required and often share
knowledge and resources with other management
agencies. This creates work efficiencies for FV.
It is the local knowledge of FO’s that ensures FV
provides the most effective and cost efficient
coverage. A loss of stations over time not only causes
a loss of career path it also causes a decrease in local
understanding and therefore issues relevant to FV.
Where closure / amalgamation of adjoining inland
and coastal stations have been suggested, this would
result in four people trying to cover a workload and
area that six people currently provide basic service
for (e.g. Colac/Apollo Bay, Traralgon/Yarram).
Some continuing non compliance trends indeed
indicate that FV should look to establish additional
inland stations (i.e. Mildura) to further enhance our
capacity to manage our highly sought after Fisheries
resources.
The FOA proposal for ongoing office locations and
staffing levels is located in Table 1.
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
10
16
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The submission provides the following conclusions
and associated recommendations required to provide
minimum field service delivery for FV in order of
priority.
Conclusions:
 Inland stations with the minimum
staffing level of 2 provide FV with an
effective and efficient capability.

A decreased number of inland and
coastal stations carry significant OH&S
and service delivery risks to FV.
Section 7 and Table 1 indicates the
minimum number of staff and locations
to ensure effective and efficient service
delivery in the short term.
Associated recommendations:
A. Immediately advertise and fill SFO/FO
positions at Swan Hill (1xSFO), Alexandra
(1xSFO), Colac/Ballarat (1xSFO), Metro
(1xFO), Cowes (1xFO), Yarram (1xFO),
Apollo Bay (1xFO), Lakes Entrance (1xFO)
and Warrnambool (1xFO). This is an absolute
minimum to achieve an acceptable service
standard.
B. Advertise and fill Fisheries Investigator (FI)
position at Wangaratta.

Conclusion:
 FV requires a presence at the following
locations, however given current
circumstances the options for the Colac
and Wangaratta locations need to be
further investigated.
Associated recommendation:
C. Undertake investigation for options at Colac
as a priority and future FO staffing at
Wangaratta.
‘Head Office’, including decentralisation of
head office roles into regional centres.
Conclusions:
 FV is best served by representation in
more inland locations rather than less.
Given population and enforcement
trends, and in order to create
efficiencies and improve service
delivery, opportunities exist to
establish a station at Mildura in the
medium term and additional resources
at Metro.
Associated recommendations:
F. In the medium term, improve service
delivery by increasing capacity to deliver
services by opening up a 2 person station at
Mildura (1xSFO & 1xFO).
G. Advertise and fill 1xSFO and 1 x FO to staff
the new Mildura station.
H. In the medium term, advertise and fill
additional position at Metro (1xFO) and
Warrnambool (1xFO).
I. Grow the capacity of Field Services to
provide SIIG services in the regions and
ensure each region has a Senior Fisheries
Investigator and Fisheries Investigator (3xFI)
as recommended in the 2005 STOPline
review.

Conclusion:
 Long term opportunities should be
investigated and considered.
Associated recommendations:
J. In the long term 4-10 year period, review
population trends, fishing pressures,
commercial/recreational/illegal, political
commitments such as MNP, recreational
licensing, and general resource pressures
such as abalone virus and increase SFO/FO
as per Table 1 as a minimum.
Conclusions:
 In order to ensure ongoing staff
development and career opportunities
the current numbers of SFO and
Operations Manager positions must be
maintained and all locations must have
a SFO.
Methods to ensure FOs career path
should include opportunities in ‘Head
Office’ positions being investigated and
implemented.
Associated recommendations:
D. Complete process to fill permanent SFO
positions for Swan Hill, Alexandra and
Ballarat.
E. Investigate options to improve FO career
path into other field services functions and

Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
11
17
IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
This Submission will be provided to Fisheries
Victoria’s Director of Field Services as a sign of
cooperation and collaboration.
Implementation benefits can be measured through
open communication and increased effectiveness.
Future reviews can judge the need for further
improvements.
18
COSTS AND SAVINGS
The costs incurred by adopting the recommendations
in this submission should be minimal and within
current allocations as the short term/current
recommendations are well within the current
resources and are conservative.
By maintaining critical mass, Fisheries Victoria
ensures delivery of services and relevance to the
community of Victoria.
Maintenance of critical mass ensures the ability of
movement across the state due to resources being
available whether permanent or secondment. By
ensuring ability to move across the state Fisheries
Victoria increases service delivery capacity through
growth in skills and increase in experiences. This in
turn maintains high levels of enthusiasm and morale.
It also significantly contributes to knowledge sharing,
and good communication which all benefits the
business and the Victorian community.
By implementing these recommendations, not only
would it be an example of a collaborative approach
between Field Services Management and FOs (which
decreases costs of stress, ineffective work,
adversarial outcomes within Fisheries Victoria), it
would increase the opportunities for all within
Fisheries Victoria Field Services to ensure:
 a successful organisation;
 enhanced professionalism, productivity,
efficiency and effectiveness;
 improved morale;
 a sense of empowerment and ownership by
all team members;
 provision of quality services to our customers
- both internal and external.
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
12
Table 1 – Proposed Locations and Staffing Levels from Current to Long Term#
Staffing
Level 03/04
(substantive)
Location
Portland
Warrnambool
Apollo Bay
Colac
Ballarat
Horsham
Mildura
Swan Hill
Bendigo
Tatura
Alexandra
Wangaratta
Wodonga
Geelong
Metro
Mornington
Cowes
Yarram
Lakes Ent.
Traralgon
Mallacoota
TOTALS
SFO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
18
FO
4
4
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
5
4
3
5
1
3
54
Current
Staffing
Level
Comment
1 SFI
Closed ‘99
1 SFI
1 SFI
72 + 3 SFI
SFO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
(-2)
FO
3
3*
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
2
2
3*
1
3
42
(-12)
Comment
(-1)
(-1)
(-2)
(-1)
(-1) +1 SFI
(-1) +1 SFI
(-1) ~
(-2)+1 SFI
(-1)
(-2)+1 SFI
58 + 4SFI
(-14)
SHORT TERM
(within 1 year)
Minimum
Required
Staffing Level
SFO
FO
1
3
1
4
1
3
?
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
6
1
5
1
3
1
3
1
4
1
1
1
3
18
47
MEDIUM
TERM
(1 to 3 years)
Comment
?Investigate options
1 SFI + 1 FI
1 SFI
1 SFI
1 SFI
65 & 5 SFI/FI
SFO
1
1
1
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19
FO
3
5
3
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
7
5
3
3
4
1
3
50
LONG
TERM
(4 to 10
years)
Comment
Re-open
1SFI & 1 FI
1SFI +1 FI
1SFI +1 FI^
1SFI +1 FI
69 & 8 SFI/FI
SFO
1
1
1
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
FO
4
5
3
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
8
6
4
3
5
1
3
57
Comment
1 SFI & 1 FI
1SFI & 1 FI
1 SFI & 1FI^
1 SFI & 1FI
77 & 8 SFI/FI
KEY
SFO – Senior Fisheries Officer
FO – Fisheries Officer
SFI – Senior Fisheries Investigator (Regionally based)
FI – Fisheries Investigator
^ - Location to be relevant to Port Phillip region
*Lakes Entrance & Warrnambool - 2xFOs leaving June 2010 shown in advance in Current Staffing Level column for FO
# These numbers can vary from week to week depending on long-term leave, secondment and other issues.
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
13
End Notes
Revised June 2010 – FOA Submission – Future Locations
14