House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Marine Parks MARINE PARKS Mr PENGILLY House of Assembly Finniss Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (15:30): There is a huge con being perpetrated on the people of South Australia; probably more than one, but in particular there is a large one being perpetrated regarding the marine parks issue. Let me tell the house about some of the nonsense going on and about the hidden agendas. The other day in The Advertiser there was an article under the auspices of Mr Chris Thomas that said that everything was dying down, everything was tickety-boo, everything was sweet, and people were not alarmed. Well, I have attended a couple of meetings myself, I have had staff attend meetings, and I have also had acquaintances attend meetings, and I can tell you that there are a few people who are alarmed—and I will read out extracts from some letters to the editor of a local paper in a moment. I think the minister has been out and about as well, but what people just do not understand is that, once these outer boundaries are set in concrete, they are done and dusted. I believe that the minister is trying to put people's minds at rest that it is not about fishing, it is not about this and it is not about that. I understand that he may have successfully conned a couple of mayors on the West Coast, but I am here to tell you that things are not too good. One of the hidden agendas (people will find if they research it deep enough) is that they will have control over beaches as well, up to the high water mark. So, under this act the department, shiny-bum bureaucrats, can go in there and issue a stop on the beach; they can stop people from going onto the beach. On another issue, I would also like to add that this was never meant to be about fishing, but what is the main ad they are using? A dirty, great, big picture of a snapper, saying 'Leave it for your grandkids and your children and future generations.' It is an absolute nonsense. I would like to read some extracts from letters in today's edition of The Islander, the local Kangaroo Island paper. Mr Scott Walden, president of the KI Crayfishermen's Association, wrote: Currently the DEH has failed to identify any specific threats due to fishing that will cause serious or irreversible damage to the marine environment. All fishing threats are currently being addressed under existing fisheries management. So what is the purpose of these parks? The media campaign the department is currently running is hugely misleading to the public. It implies that the parks are going to improve fish stocks, and actually claims that existing parks have delivered 550 per cent increase in biomass of plants and animals. I thought they were supposed to be set up to protect biodiversity, not to manage our fish stocks in fisheries that are currently considered to be some of the best managed in the world. Before we can set park boundaries we need to know what specific threats there are to the environment, and what action is to be taken to negate those threats. About 80 per cent of our island's inshore waters are included within park boundaries. Listen to this one, from Mr David Churchill of American River. He wrote: In the act, one of the objects…states, in part, that 'costs associated with protecting and restoring the marine park should be allocated or shared equitably…and people who obtain benefits from the marine environment…should bear an appropriate share of the costs that flow from their activities.' Mr Churchill said: Translated it means we are going to be charged for all activities in the marine park. Considering that the park(s) includes most of the waters around KI, including the seas around Kingscote, Bay of Shoals, American River, Island Beach, Baudin Beach, Penneshaw and D'Estrees Bay up to the high water mark and in some cases beyond we should not only be concerned, but alarmed. That is forgetting about the NRM's control over these beaches as well; so they will have a double whammy! Mr Churchill continued: Persons who obtain benefits from these waters and beaches would include, but not limited to, beach goers and their families, surfers, beach fishermen, boat fishermen, and pleasure boaters of all types. What was once our right to walk on a beach, or swim, or sail the seas, will now be taken from us and be at the whim of the DEH and their permit system. In other words the government creates an unnecessary new empire covering half the state's waters, under DEH, and we have to pay for it. We, meaning the country people of the state—there were no marine parks off [the city of] Adelaide. What absolute nonsense. The most degraded part of the coast in South Australia and there is no park. It is pure political manipulation. If you were fair dinkum about putting in marine parks to care for the environment the first one you would put in place would be off the coast of Adelaide, 50 or 60 kilometres, and try to do something about it; not try to halt everything in the rest of the state. It is a ludicrous situation. There are 1.3 million people, or whatever it is, in Adelaide but no park. Yesterday, when I went for my morning walk adjacent to the stormwater that flows down past the airport, water flowing everywhere straight out to the Gulf St Vincent— Time expired.