MARINE PARKS (PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 September 2010.)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:01): I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on this bill. Marine parks, as we all know, are very important; in fact, they were a Liberal initiative in the 1990s. The then Liberal government went to the 2002 election with a plan, which would have had marine parks set up, in place and running by 2006. It is a shame that we are still working on this and that we are still trying to put it to bed, but I do have to say that, as a general rule, I am in favour and supportive of marine parks.

I have a view that, really, the outer boundaries are a little irrelevant. I would not mind if the whole coastline was a marine park; it would not make any difference to me at all. What I think is very important, though, are the zones. They are what really count, because they tell you where certain activities can be undertaken and where they cannot.

From a parochial perspective, the electorate of Stuart has a little over 100 kilometres of coastline in the Upper Spencer Gulf. It is a very important area of the state's waters and, certainly, very worthy of looking after, protecting and ensuring that it is here for hundreds—if not thousands—of years in the relatively good condition that it is in at the moment. It is a little unique in the Upper Spencer Gulf and, Madam Speaker, we share that section of coastline in our two neighbouring electorates.

As the minister might know, it is a hypersaline inverse estuary, which does make it a very special place and quite unique with regard to Australian coastal waters all over the place but, in particular, within South Australia. As I said, it is really the zones that make the difference, and there is no doubt that, whether you are a recreational fisher, a professional fisher or an ardent environmentalist—regardless of your take on this and if you have an interest in this—it is the zones that make the most difference.

The fishing industry has said to me clearly that it is very concerned about the fact that displaced effort regulations are not in place and are not going to be set up before the zones are identified. They have a very strong view, and I support them in this, that the way their displaced effort would be dealt with—the way they would receive potential compensation for their effort—is very important, and that should be established before the zones are set up. I think that is a very important thing to note.

I also point out that, as I understand it, the coastal waters around Adelaide are not part of the marine parks but that all the coastal waters around Port Augusta (which is the largest population centre in my electorate and, certainly, an important coastal Upper Spencer Gulf location) will be included in marine parks. That can cut both ways. I am not trying to be difficult on this issue but, certainly, there is nothing that is so special about the waters around Port Augusta that it should not be protected.

We have very clean water around Port Augusta. We have two resident pods of dolphins who live in the waters very close to Port Augusta. We now have regular visits by whales to the Upper Spencer Gulf—they come right up to the town of Port Augusta. All that needs to be protected, encouraged and supported. However, I am concerned that having the area around Port Augusta as part of the declared marine park could restrict development. Development is vital for the whole state but certainly for regional areas.

I am concerned about the possibility that we now have more rules, regulations and impediments to development. We have two cruise operators operating in Port Augusta and they work very well with each other; one goes south from the town on its regular route and one goes north from the town. I have participated in both those cruises. The southern cruise has more of a hospitality focus and the cruise that heads north has a more environmental focus in regard to the information and services provided.

They are both tremendous examples of business and regional development and they support not only the Port Augusta area but also the outback, Flinders Ranges and the Mid North through tourism. I talked to cruise customers on one of those cruises the other day and two or three had come from Yankalilla—southern Adelaide, I think it was—purely to take this cruise. So, clearly, the environment and its protection is important, but I would hate to find a situation where another cruise operator, or even the existing cruise operators, are put under pressure in regard to the work they do and the important development and encouragement that they give to businesses throughout the Upper Spencer Gulf and, certainly, in Port Augusta.

Aquaculture is important in our area and, again, that cuts both ways. The people in aquaculture, perhaps more than anyone, need clean water, a clean environment, and the right flows and micro-organisms in the water, so they will not do anything to damage the environment. However, I would be very concerned and upset if these new regulations were to prevent that sort of development, which is very important for the economies of the Upper Spencer Gulf.

I am also concerned about the possibility of overzealous environmental protection. I think that is probably a good way to put it. Everyone in this room and the responsible constituents in Stuart want the environment and the special waters of the Upper Spencer Gulf to be protected, but not at all costs. There are a lot of activities in Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie that rely on using the water and using the local area for business and, in two of those three cities, for heavy industry.

The Upper Spencer Gulf needs that heavy industry, absolutely must have that heavy industry. We do not want to wreck the environment to sustain it, but I do not want anything to get in the way of maintaining and growing the jobs that those industries support in the Upper Spencer Gulf.

Getting back to the zoning issue, as I understand it, the declaration of the zones and any potential adjustment to them will be done through regulation and will have to come through parliament. I am most focused on those zones, because it is the zoning that will determine what, where, how, and what is in and below the water can be used. That is a very important part of this and I certainly support the professional fishers who have great concerns. I would have to say, minister, they have expressed to me very seriously and genuinely their disappointment with regard to the interactions that they have had with you so far.

The Hon. P. Caica: Me?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I have to put that on the record with you and your department with regard to having what they consider to be their current interests dealt with fairly. I encourage the minister as strongly as I can to look after the fishermen of the entire gulf—certainly the Upper Spencer Gulf—which is where that information is coming from. Their displaced effort regulations must be put in place before the regulations set the zoning.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (11:12): I thank all members for their contributions to this debate and I thank the member for MacKillop for his indication of support for this bill. I am pleased to see the progress of this amendment bill, as it demonstrates the government's commitment to carefully listen and, as a result, take action to address the needs of South Australians.

This bill was developed in direct response to the concerns of community members about any changes that may be proposed to future marine park management plans, and this bill will ensure that any future amendments to management plans will be provided to this place for the full scrutiny offered by the parliament.

The establishment of marine parks in South Australia is recognised in our State Strategic Plan, and is a target we have successfully achieved. In January 2009 the outer boundaries of a complete network of 19 marine parks were proclaimed across South Australia. As required under the Marine Parks Act 2007, these outer boundaries were released for public comment, and as a result of this comment amendments were made to the boundaries of seven parks. Approximately 44 per cent of state waters are now included in marine parks. I acknowledge the comment of the member for Stuart with respect to his views on the outer boundaries.

A number of matters were raised by members during their contributions on this bill, and I take the opportunity to address certain factors or issues raised within those particular contributions. The member for MacKillop asked whether the bill provides the power for either house to disallow the whole of what is before parliament or only part of it. I can confirm that the bill provides a process identical to that for approving regulations. Specifically, any future amendments to approved marine management plans would need to be either disallowed or accepted in their entirety.

Members opposite have also suggested that there has not been consultation during the process to date. This is simply not the case. Strong community engagement has been and will continue to be a key feature of the government's marine parks program. Between 2008 and 2010 the Department of Environment and Natural Resources officers have spoken with nearly 17,000 community members about marine parks.

This extensive community engagement program has included: 56 community events during 2009 that supported the consultation on the marine park outer boundaries; meetings with peak stakeholder groups, such as the seafood industry, recreational fishers, tourism and resources; meetings with community leaders, such as mayors, local government executives, Indigenous leaders and business owners; and, establishing 13 marine park local advisory groups comprising 180 volunteer community members.

For the benefit of members, I would like to briefly outline the next stage of the marine parks program which involves the development of the draft management plans for each marine park. As members are aware, the marine park local advisory groups were established to develop community proposals for marine park zoning scenarios. This phase is expected to take up to six months to complete. These zoning scenarios will be worked on over the next six months by the local advisory groups and key stakeholders such as the seafood sector and other relevant industries—tourism operators, local government and conservation groups—which all have, in their own way, important information to bring to the table.

Around mid-2011, I expect that draft management plans and impact statements will be released for a formal period of community consultation, as required by the Marine Parks Act. The marine park management plans will then be finalised around mid-2012. I am sure members are aware there is a diverse range of views about marine park zoning and, in particular, the appropriate size of marine park sanctuary zones. As was mentioned by the member for Stuart, this is the main issue that is concerning people.

For example, in respect of the diverse views, commercial fishers want minimal sanctuary zones. By comparison, the conservation sector is seeking sanctuary zones for up to 30 per cent of our state waters. That is equivalent to up to 70 per cent of our marine parks. I expect there will be much community debate as we go through this next stage of the marine park planning process. However, I do encourage the community and all key stakeholders—including our very important fishing industries—to work with us to help design our marine parks for the benefit of all South Australians now and into the future.

I note that the member for Finniss made comments relating to two fishermen in his electorate and the difficulties they are having. However, these difficulties as described by the member have nothing to do with marine parks as there have been no new restrictions to date on any of the activities in marine parks.

Members opposite also raised some old arguments about the marine parks program. Whilst these arguments have been refuted many times, I am pleased to put some information on the record again for the benefit of members. Marine parks are being established to protect and conserve areas that have natural value to ensure that these areas remain in place for generations to come. Marine parks are not about restoring areas that are already degraded. When we establish parks on land, we locate them in areas that have the natural values that we want to protect and conserve. We do not locate them on cleared farmland or in an urban environment.

This is a fundamental principle of protected area design on land and in the sea that underpins thousands of protected areas all around the world. Unfortunately, the areas closest to Adelaide have been impacted upon by a range of human activities that typically occur in metropolitan areas. There are many good programs underway to address these matters but marine parks are not one of them.

Fishing in marine parks is one of the most important matters that government must get right as marine parks are established. We have already invested considerable time and made a number of commitments to help ensure that both commercial and recreational fishers can continue to enjoy their fishing activities.

I draw to members' attention the marine park policy commitments made by the government in 2009, in particular, that an assurance has been given to the commercial fishing industry that the outcome of marine park zoning will have no more than a 5 per cent economic impact as per the 2007 EconSearch report. The government has been working for over two years with commercial fishers to consider the best way to manage any unavoidable displaced commercial fishing effort, and while this may seem like a long period of time to some, the most important thing is that we get this right.

A working group looking into this issue has recently provided me with advice on a scheme for managing displaced effort and compensation, and I am currently considering this and other advice. The contributions of industry representatives to this work have been greatly appreciated. The government is committed to managing displaced effort in a manner that considers both the prudent use of public monies and minimises the impact on commercial fishers. I encourage the commercial fishing industry to continue to work closely with government so that we can ensure that the impact on fisheries is minimised.

The government also recognises the value of recreational fishing to South Australians across the state. I guess there is no need to remind the house, but I will, that as a dual gold medallist in the World Police and Firefighter Games in the fine sport of angling, I am about making sure that recreational fishers now and into the future will still be able to enjoy what it is that we all do enjoy about fishing. We recognise the value of recreational fishing to South Australians across our state and I understand that access to fishing areas that are accessible to all people is one of the most important issues for recreational fishers.

For this reason we have committed to ensuring that recreational fishing access will be maintained at key popular beaches, jetties and boat ramps across the state—and, of course, that will be the waters adjacent to boat ramps across our state. I can also confirm that the 13 marine park local advisory groups include both recreational and commercial fishers, and this will ensure that fishers' needs are well considered as zoning proposals are developed by each advisory group.

I refer to the member for Bragg's request for detailed information about the ecosystems, habitats and species that marine parks will protect, and advise that I have recently provided some correspondence to the member about this matter. I can also advise that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has already made available a range of technical resources that explain the habitats and species that marine parks will seek to protect. The member for Bragg also inquired about the interaction between marine parks and natural resources management, and it is expected that planning, monitoring and implementation of marine parks and natural resources management plans will be complementary, to ensure that community and government resources are used in the most efficient and effective manner.

This government has put in place a thorough and inclusive marine parks program, which has focused on community engagement. I am confident that this process will ensure that South Australia will have a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of marine parks that both protects our precious marine environment and sustains our important regional industries and communities. Again, I thank members opposite for their contributions to this debate, and I thank parliamentary counsel and staff from my department for their work on this most important bill. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (11:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I want to reinforce a couple of the comments I made earlier, particularly—

Mr Williams: Out of order; most out of order.

The Hon. P. CAICA: You can rule me out of order, Madam Speaker, but it is particularly in relation to the contributions made by the opposition here. It is safe to say that this process has not been without controversy, and, of course, it is the objective of the government to work very closely not only with the opposition but also with the very communities who will be impacted by the decisions made.

Bill read a third time and passed.