MARINE PARKS

Mr BROCK (Frome) (14:28): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Environment and Conservation. Can the minister please advise the house whether the displaced effort working group has completed its work and provided the advice on compensation matters to the minister if the proposed marine parks eventuate? Has the minister accepted this advice? If the minister has not accepted this advice, what are the guiding principles that will govern the payment of fair and reasonable compensation to those fishers whose businesses and livelihood are impacted by the creation of marine parks and their zoning? Also, when will these fishers whose businesses and livelihoods will be impacted by the creation of zoning of marine parks be informed of the principles or regulations related to compensation so that they can have some certainty as to their future direction?

In 2008 the government established a joint industry government advisory committee—the displaced effort working group—to advise on the principles of fair and reasonable compensation for commercial fishers whose principles are affected by the establishment or zoning of marine parks. The payment of such fair and reasonable compensation is a requirement of section 21 of the Marine Parks Act 2007.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (14:30): Madam Speaker, if I do miss anything in responding I am sure that the member will be on his feet quickly to say that I did not answer this part of it.

I think it is important to put all this in context. The government and the commercial fishing industry continue to work together on what is a very important issue that has been raised by the member for Frome. I acknowledge his outstanding representation of the people of the electorate of Frome. It is an extremely important issue, that of displaced commercial fishing, which may result from the zoning of the South Australian marine parks.

What I would also say, too, is that in reality we say that we do not want to pay compensation, and that is true. A 5 per cent maximum was agreed to from the EconSearch report. However, quite frankly, through the input of the commercial fishers, we want to undertake a process that minimises any displaced effort whatsoever.

The same applies, I might add, to recreational fishers. I have said ad nauseam that we are not about compromising in any way what is a very vibrant and robust industry here in South Australia, the commercial fishing sector. In fact, I was on the West Coast last week, as I mentioned, and saw the input into those communities of recreational fishers who travel to those regions to enjoy not only its beauty but also to catch a feed of fish.

The government is committed to ensuring that marine parks will provide comprehensive, adequate and representative protection for South Australia's marine environment, and, importantly, whilst also ensuring, as I mentioned, minimal impact on the displacement of our state's valuable seafood industry and, in turn, recreational fishers.

To achieve this the government has made a firm commitment that the marine parks will have no more than 5 per cent economic impact on the state's fishing industry—and that is as measured by the 2007 EconSearch report—by ensuring that wherever possible sanctuary zones have minimal overlap with working areas.

There has been the establishment of a displaced effort working group. It has completed its work, and, as a result, there is considerable common ground between the commercial fishing industry and government on the process for managing displaced commercial fishing effort. I just want to make this point, too, in response to the member for Frome: I have advised industry that the agreed sequential steps for managing displaced effort that are expected to be implemented are, one, avoid displacement by pragmatic zoning, which makes a lot of sense, and, two, redistribute effort only where possible without impacting ecological and economic sustainability to the fishery. That is, if we draw a zone—I will explain that for the—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, it's obvious isn't it? And it's appropriate too.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: He's so funny, isn't he? The longstanding—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Another member of—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order. Members will sit down.

Mr PENGILLY: The minister is directly reflecting on another member of the house.

The SPEAKER: I am more concerned about responding to interjections across the floor. The minister needs to be careful.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, madam. I will not respond to that or any other interjection from any of the displaced deputy leaders that exist over there.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thirdly, market-based buyback, that is—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Oh, sorry!

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Wasn't he a displaced deputy leader as well?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I'm sorry, displaced leaders—market-based buyback of sufficient effort to avoid impact on the fishery and, finally, because I know you are interested, the member for Frome, compulsory acquisition as a last resort option. In addition to the Marine Parks Act 2007, it provides that if the rights of commercial fishers are affected—this is in addition to the sequential steps, because no matter what we agree on with the commercial fishers they will still have rights—under the establishment of the marine park, the government must, through the act, pay a fair and reasonable compensation to those fishers. I want to assure—

Mr Pederick: Show us the science.

The Hon. P. CAICA: What, the science? I won't respond, Madam Speaker, because—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, no, because—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: It would be like going searching for his brain, Madam Speaker, it might take too long, and I do not want to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: What I want to do, Madam Speaker, is assure industry members that all applications for compensation under section 21 of the Marine Parks Act will be considered as per the government's legal responsibility. We are currently working through—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, don't we want to identify what the total sum is before anything else?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, it depends. What you are—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: —doing again is creating an undue level of fear amongst the commercial sectors—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: The government is currently working through the SA Marine Parks Alliance. That is the peak body representing the commercial fishing industry. I met with them recently to finalise displaced effort and compensation arrangements. In fact, there is a meeting today between my departmental officers, PIRSA officers and representatives of the SA Marine Parks Alliance to further progress this matter. I am considering also the need for administrative regulations to clearly set out any application, assessment and appeal procedures, and I am seeking further advice from my department in this regard. I am also seeking advice on the potential future role of the Fisheries Council—which I think is appropriate—in relation to this matter, as has been requested by industry.

Members would be aware, of course, that there has been much interest and debate about the preliminary sanctuary zone scenarios that were provided to the marine park local advisory groups in November. Again, I met with the presiding members two Thursdays ago—very good representatives of the community presiding over the local advisory groups. They are outstanding people. They have been advised, as has everyone, that those drafted scenarios were a starting point. I expect that, with the work that is being undertaken by the local advisory groups, when information comes back to me, it could well be vastly different from that which was presented as a starting point.

There have also been suggestions through the media that these scenarios will have a significant impact on commercial fishing. Again, I say this—I need to say it again and, hopefully, it will get through to the opposition in particular—this government has made a commitment that marine parks will have no more than 5 per cent economic impact on the state's fishing industry. I also remind members again that the scenarios provided were not proposing sanctuary zones: they were simply a place to start. Members may be interested to know that key stakeholders actually asked the government to have a starting point. Clearly, the best way to minimise—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: —the potential economic impact on commercial fishing is by placing sanctuary zones—which I think the member for Bragg mentioned is a no-brainer, and that is right—by placing sanctuary zones wherever possible in areas that are not heavily fished, and that is what we are trying to achieve. However, to date, there has been little information forthcoming from the commercial fishing sector. Quite frankly, what we want is this: we are seeking additional industry data be available so this can be incorporated into the design of the preferred zoning scenarios. I urge the commercial fishing sector, knowing full well that on the—I will stand corrected here, but say we have 150 people who are on the LAGs across the state, a significant proportion of those (it could be between 60 and 80) are commercial fishers who are actually inputting into that process. But we want this: we want the peak organisations in the commercial fishing industry to assist us in the drawing of those sanctuary zones and, again, it is a no-brainer for them to involve themselves in this. So, it is critically important that commercial fishers—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I very much respect the member for Goyder, who is a very decent human being. I am doing this, the government is doing this: we are undertaking a process that we hope will install a higher level of trust and faith. All we can do—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, we haven't even—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: —got the sanctuary zones in place. So, again, I would ask the opposition to, instead of playing political games, get behind this process because, as I recall, it was the opposition that introduced marine parks in the first instance.

An honourable member: They did.

The Hon. P. CAICA: They did. So, it is critically important—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: —that commercial fishers provide—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: —the necessary fine-scale industry data to the design process so that we can work together to minimise the impact on industry. What we want—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Madam Speaker? We want these—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: We want these marine parks to be co-produced—we want the community to help us to produce marine parks—for the very sound reason everyone over there says that we need to have marine parks. We want it to be co-produced. We want the broader community—the commercial and recreational fishers, people who are interested in tourism, people interested in conservation—to be part of this process to co-produce these parks.

I will finish off here, if I have answered the question, but I want to make this point: we are also committed to ensuring minimal impact on the displacement of recreational fishing. Again, it is anticipated that careful design of marine park zoning to avoid high-use areas, combined with policy commitments, will minimise any displacement of the recreational—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Self-praise is no recommendation. I am a dual world champion in the art of angling, and I want to make sure that I can still continue to fish! I understand recreational fishers very, very well.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I don't have a conflict of interest. What I have—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will wind up his answer.

The Hon. P. CAICA: What I have is a commitment to make sure that this state continues to have a robust commercial industry and a very, very vibrant recreational fishing industry.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: PIRSA, Fisheries and Aquaculture—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will wind up his answer.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will indeed, Madam Speaker. PIRSA, Fisheries and Aquaculture agrees that pragmatic zoning will mean that displaced recreational fishing can be redistributed without impacting the ecological sustainability of any fishery without adjusting size, boat or bag limits. I thank the honourable member for his question—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: At least two—

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: —but I wasn't counting—

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will sit down.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Sit down? I will, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the honourable member for providing me with the opportunity to answer this question.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!