House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Bills Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Goyder Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (10:32): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Marine Parks Act 2007. Read a first time. Mr Williams interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop is called to order. Mr Williams House of Assembly Mr Williams: Sir? I am not allowed to talk to my colleague next to me? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop's conversation out of his seat is distracting the Speaker. Second Reading Second Reading Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Goyder Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (10:34): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Mr GRIFFITHS: It is interesting that the parliament at the commencement says the Lord's Prayer. It is possible that I may need to pray on the success of this bill, but it is a very just one to bring to the parliament. It is identical in nature to the bill considered in both chambers last year. It was moved by the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other place and was successful (passed by a majority of 10:9), debated in this house on September 18 and, sadly, lost by one vote. But the Liberal Party and the communities that it is seeking to represent across three key areas in South Australia believe it has a justification and believe that it needs to be reintroduced. I have read through the debate that occurred in the house last year because I wanted to remind myself of some of the things that were said, to understand the position taken by the government, to appreciate the words from the member for Waite in supporting the opposition bill, and to review and try to understand the words of the member for Frome in voting against the bill. The member for Frome is seen as the person upon whom the vote rested and was eventually lost. In reviewing that though, the emphasis to me in determining the position that the member for Frome took was that a regional impact assessment statement had to be prepared. That has been undertaken. There was consideration by the opposition in suggesting this bill again for debate earlier in the year. I did consider it, but thought that some level of natural justice needed to occur to ensure that the fullness of that report had been able to be completed and considered by the government, the community and the opposition. That has now been released. It was done on 1 or 2 October. It is a lengthy report. It is broken down into the impact as it stands for the Ceduna, Kangaroo Island and Port Wakefield communities. I confirm that I have the great honour of representing the Port Wakefield community, some of whom are with us in the chamber today. But it has emphasised to me the concerns that I continue to have because of the reporting that has been undertaken since then on the report and the different positions that have been taken. The Minister for Environment and the member for Frome, having reviewed it, do not seemingly believe that there is significant impact. The opposition, in its review upon it, do actually believe there is significant impact and that is why it further enforces the need for us to consider this bill again, and I believe in the fullness of consideration by the chamber, will, when a vote does occur, vote to be supportive of it, because we do not do it out of political opportunism and we do not do it out of political advantage. We bring this bill before the parliament again on the basis that the community has demanded it of us. The community want to have some surety attached to an industry, be it recreational or professional fishing, and, indeed, there are the tourism numbers that visit those areas which are associated with fishing opportunities, because they are concerned. I will present some evidence to the parliament on the need for this to occur, but I hope that all members consider this seriously, look at the impacts that it has on real people—who we were elected to actually represent is real people—and to bring forward a different decision than was considered last year, which devastated many people and gave rise to considerable emotion, and has continued to be one that has had a significant impact upon those communities. This bill intends to change, not remove completely, 13 of the 83 sanctuary zone declared areas across the 19 marine parks to habitat protection zones. They are still part of the marine park system. They are still part of the preservation that exists, but they allow a use to occur that will assist the fishers, and I classify all of them inclusively in that and that is why we do so. The member for Frome—and I will use that term instead of his ministerial responsibility—has said that we are just grandstanding, that we are just playing politics with this, and I do not believe that I am putting other words into his mouth. That is what I have read in some media reports on it. I know that the member for Frome has continued to meet with people impacted by this from within and outside of his own electorate. He has considered positions put to them. I know he has acted in good faith by meeting with the Minister for Environment on this, and in questioning in estimates the member for Frome, in his ministerial responsibility, confirmed with me that regular meetings have been had about that. So my hope always was that, as information came through from the community and as information was submitted by the regional impact assessment statement, the member for Frome would ensure that the words that he said to the people in Port Wakefield in February 2014 would be finally acted upon. I take the opportunity to present to the parliament again just some of those words, and they are, and I quote: The locals know, not the politicians, not the bureaucrats in Adelaide, they have no idea, so what we did here has to be what the people demand. By association, the people are demanding action, and that is why the opposition has brought the bill. The people demand and require parliamentarians to ensure that they give recognition to the needs of their communities. The opposition have been strong supporters for a long time of the marine park process. We respect the fact that the marine environment needs to be preserved. We want to ensure that it is left in the best condition it possibly can be for future generations to enjoy. We are, though, challenged by the need to ensure that a balance is struck that allows some economic certainty to exist because, at the moment, that is what has been lost. In my review of the over 200 pages of the Sanctuary Zones Regional Impact Assessment Statement: Ceduna, Kangaroo Island and Port Wakefield, I focused mainly on the Port Wakefield community as that is the area I represent. In it, a figure is quoted of a loss of only $14,000. I reflect upon the fact—and it has been put quite often by many people—that the data upon which this report is based was over only a four-month period. I know that people from the Port Wakefield community met with the member for Frome and asked him to support a request for a 12-month data collection period. I know that request was considered by the minister. I know that those same people, at least on one occasion, did meet with minister Hunter from the other place about this, but it appears to me that again, because of what the report states, that has not occurred, and that is what I struggle to believe. If I had known it was going to be only a four-month collection period, we would have debated this bill months ago. The need has existed since the implementation of the sanctuary zones for the review to be carried out. I was somewhat devastated, I must say—and I was in the leader's office at the time listening to this media report—when minister Hunter, the Minister for Environment, said on radio that no matter what the results of that were he would make no change. He completely pre-empted what the position would be without considering the regional impact assessment statement and just showed flagrant disregard of the people— Mr Marshall House of Assembly Mr Marshall: And arrogance. Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Mr GRIFFITHS: —and arrogance, indeed, leader—of South Australia who were calling upon a request for the parliament to reconsider this and do something about it and for the minister to recognise this. I implore the Minister for Environment to sit down, study it, and talk to the people in a productive manner that ensures a positive outcome. I intend to read into Hansard some of the correspondence the opposition has received about this legislation. It is not political speak; it is the comments of concerned individuals who to some degree, with their hand on their heart, are telling us—and, by association, I want to tell the parliament and the people of South Australia—what the impact of these sanctuary zones has been on them. I will do that now. It was not my intention to jump into it, but I do want to make people aware of just some of these things. These are letters that were provided to the Minister for Environment, so it is not a surprise to the government, and I have had discussions with these people so it is not a surprise to me either, but it is a great area of concern. It is an area people need to understand because without it we are going to live with the continued frustration of no changes being made, and if that is to be the case it is something that I cannot support. The first one is from a professional fisher based out of Port Wakefield. He states: I am a Marine Scale fish Fisher from Port Wakefield and I have been fishing for 26 years. My family has been fishing in this district for 50 years, my grandfather was and my father is still a fisherman. Since the implementation of Marine Parks I have lost about 40 per cent of my traditional fishing area and that has caused a loss of 57 per cent of my catch of the primary fish species component of my catch. This resulted in a loss of income of $63,000 in the first 9 months as at the end of June this year. That is $63,000 from one family, one operator, one man who provides employment opportunities, one man who is a part of a community, and one man who has been significantly involved in this, not from a rant and rave position but from the basis of really detailed conversation. He goes on to say: I am finding that the commercial fishers in my area are putting more fishing effort into the remaining marginal fishing areas and I feel that will cause an impact to the sustainability of those fish stocks of the areas that we have available to us. When I fish in front of the townships of Port Clinton, Ardrossan and Rogues Point the residents complain to the local media about us catching all of their fish. It would be preferable that we did not fish in these locations and were able to fish in our traditional fishing areas where there has now been placed a sanctuary zone. Some fishermen, including myself, have received verbal criticism for being in these areas. There has been a high level of anxiety and stress within the fishing fleet of Port Wakefield as the fishers try desperately hard to live with making far less money. There are up to 15 other family fishing businesses in the same situation in our region. If the government had [accepted but] taken not selectively ignored industries cultural knowledge throughout the 10 year consultation process these impacts could have been avoided. I do not accept that acquisition of my livelihood amounts to fair and reasonable compensation for my current and future losses, which should never have happened. That letter was provided to the member for Frome also. As I say, this is a person I have known for probably five years now. When I first met him at his house with his family, I was impressed by the quality of the man and continue to be so. He has taken a lead role out of desperation. He has gone far beyond his comfort zone in being a public figure and being a voice continually about this issue because of the desire to ensure that his community—one that he has loved, one that he has grown up in—is not disadvantaged. The letter does not highlight the fact that his brother, who is also a fisherman, has moved his family and he has incurred costs associated with that. He has had to relocate to Eyre Peninsula to ensure that he has a future in fishing. The letter does not talk about (but I know that this is the case) fishermen from across the region who have relocated to other parts on a temporary basis—some going to the Port Pirie area, which the member for Frome represents. Those people are abused by community people and by fishermen who operate out of there. It has been the subject of media reporting in that area. I emphasise that they are there because they have to be to provide an income for their family. Their family businesses have struggled significantly and that is the only choice available to them, but it has created a significant level of disquiet because they have been forced out of where they operate from and they are going to an area they do not know. They are trying to provide a future. How do you recover from that? How do you ensure that you have got a future in an industry? Another letter is from a fisherman on Kangaroo Island, and his letter states: …I am a third generation Marine Scalefish Fisher, keeping alive the traditions of my father and Grandfather before him— which is a common theme here. These are multigeneration operations that are being impacted. The letter continues: I commenced fishing on Kangaroo Island in 1999 after my father retired. I had 200 metre net and a 3 metre boat and my local knowledge was less impressive than my equipment. So, he did not know much about what he was doing. I continue: But over the years they have both grown. I have never over-capitalised to the spatial limitations of KI and sharing the area with the one other net fisherman [who was there first]. I have never made big money from fishing, but it has enabled me to survive. In fact without fishing [I] wonder if I could have coped while managing a number of family challenges. I have even been able to give a bit back over the last few years with my involvement with industry representation. When you have a good knowledge in any field [of] its…composure, confidence enabling you to work through hard times or in my case in later years catch up after meetings. I lost all that on the first of October last year— with the introduction of the sanctuary zones— half of my being all I had learnt was taken away. Why is it I feel like I am being punished? This chap has a son who is 26 years old who has suffered from anxiety, panic attacks and depression over the last 10 years. He has tried to help as best he could having had mild depression himself a long time ago. His letter continues: The Marine Parks saga has given me a greater appreciation of what it is like to feel helpless and uncertain about your future. With the permanent closure of Shoal bay I've lost approx 40 percent of net fishing days, there simply isn't anywhere else on KI suitable to work. Based on prices of the premium fish sold locally my average income is down by $33,000 since October 2014. That is another example of a professional fisherman who has lost income. I have an example of a professional fisher in Port Wakefield who lost up to $100,000. We have fishers who are accessing their superannuation to keep their business operating. Fishers have sold equipment out of desperation to ensure that their business has a future and, by association if their business is successful they are able to provide fish to South Australians who do not fish. This is an important piece of legislation. It does not gut the 13: it translates them into habitat protection zones. It gives surety to the communities assisting in that. It helps ensure that the marine parks are going to be supported. It is an important piece of legislation to support. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. P. Caica.