Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2015.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:02): I rise to speak on the Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill. I will be brief because we need to get this voted on. I acknowledge the great work of the member for Goyder with regard to marine parks around this state and their impact on our fishing fraternity, and I welcome fisher families to the house today. It has been a real struggle for our fishing community. I have always believed that their activities have been very well managed under the Fisheries Management Act.

I think we have the best act in the world. I think we have the best managed fisheries in the world, for that matter, so why do we need to bring the environment department in to manage the fisheries? There is no need at all, but that is essentially what has happened with the marine parks legislation. Eighty-three no-take zones have been introduced. What the member for Goyder is wishing to do is to make 13 of them (instead of no-take zones) habitat protection areas.

We need to have more equity in our society, more equity in our state. That means that we need equity for our fishermen and our fishing families so that they have the perfect legal right to make a good income. These people have been displaced from many areas. It has had a huge impact around Port Wakefield and Kangaroo Island and around the south coast as well. It has caused a lot of issues, such as people fishing harder in areas where they are allowed to fish now, causing some conversations between people who are probably not too happy about that.

What I will say is that if this environment department, if this environment minister, the Hon. Ian Hunter, was so concerned about fisheries, why does he show little concern about the impact the long-nosed fur seals are having on our fisheries population right around the state? They eat at least 400 tonnes of fish a day, tear our nets to bits in the lakes and Coorong and are destroying livelihoods, but whenever I write to the minister I get a glib response, even if it is in relation to the suicide watch notice that we have on some of those fishermen.

I ask the minister to have a very good look at what they are doing. In fact, I believe that the environment department should stay right out of managing fisheries. I acknowledge the work of the member for Goyder, and may this bill proceed through the house.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:05): I too rise to speak to this bill, and congratulate the member for Goyder on the good work he has done in bringing this bill to this place once again. Of course, it was a little over a year ago that we voted on this bill for the first time.

The intention of this bill is to change the management of just 13 of the 83 sanctuary zones listed within the marine parks. The member for Goyder has many fishing families operating around the coastline of his electorate and, as the member for Flinders, I too have an extensive coastline—about two and half thousand kilometres of coastline—and fishing is so important to my part of the world. It has been demonstrated here today by the full Speaker's Gallery, people who have come here to watch this debate—and to see how the vote goes, I might add.

As I said, fisheries are so important, and I firmly believe that the introduction of the sanctuary zones was based very much on flawed science. A well-managed fishery was already in place, as the member for Hammond identified. There was no identifiable risk or challenge to the integrity of the environment. The fisheries are managed by PIRSA, the department of primary industries, and shutting the gate on such critical fishing grounds—the most important fishing grounds of all—has had a tremendous impact not just on coastal communities but also on fishing families and individuals themselves. There have been job losses; there is no doubt that there have been job losses as a result of this—and why? For goodness' sake, in this current economic climate I do not know why a government would deliberately take a course of action that would result in fewer jobs in country areas.

I firmly believe in conservation. I also firmly believe in a productive landscape. I was a wheat farmer for 30 years and I still have an interest in that, and I have known many, many fishermen and I have been fishing many times in my own life. There is a place for active management and there is a place for sustainable management of our landscape and environment so that it does remain productive, and I think that should be our goal; not shutting the gate on vast areas of ocean and, just as importantly, vast areas of land, which is exactly what this government seems to be intent on doing.

The perverse outcome of the original bill, of course, was that the fishing effort has changed. It has been taken away from productive fishing grounds and increased the pressure on less productive grounds, and that has a detrimental effect on the environment. This is a perverse outcome that I do not think the government foresaw, or even really cared much about. The consultation process in the lead up to this original bill was a sham. I know that many people came to the table in good faith and contributed over considerable months, and even years, towards what they thought would be a reasonable outcome. They did not achieve that.

I urge the government to consider and support this bill, which has been once again brought to the table by the member for Goyder. I congratulate him on his work. The proof is in the pudding, and there is no doubt that the act, as it currently stands, will have a significant impact not just on the fishing industry but also on regional communities.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (11:08): It will come as no surprise to those opposite that the government opposes this bill. Quite frankly, the bill seeks to undermine the environmental protection provided by our state's marine park network. Under this bill, some of the most iconic sites and unique creatures and habitats in our state's waters will be at risk.

The Liberal Party is seeking to undo more than a decade of work and choosing to ignore the science. We do not cop the 'flawed science' comments made by the member for Flinders. They continue to ignore the science and ignore years of community consultation and input, with the aim, of course, of pleasing a few select individuals. This move by the opposition comes a year after the implementation of the marine parks.

The opposition is continuing its ill-founded attack on marine parks despite the release on 1 October 2015 of the regional impact assessment statements (RIAS) for Port Wakefield, Ceduna and Kangaroo Island that—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: —assess the first year of implementation of marine park sanctuary zones.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: The findings of this report even more clearly refute the opposition stance against marine parks.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members are reminded of standing orders, where each member is entitled to speak and be heard in silence.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Deputy Speaker, I thank you. The RIAS report was independently prepared by the Goyder Institute for Water Research in partnership with the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies. The report provides a snapshot of how marine parks are impacting and benefiting regional South Australia, and this report shows that marine parks have not resulted in any unanticipated significant impacts on communities.

The report shows that there have been no region-wide impacts as a result of the government's implementation of marine parks. The report also shows that marine parks have strong community support even in areas that are known for commercial fishing. The RIAS was undertaken to provide an early indication of any unexpected regional impacts.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is called to order.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The government committed to taking immediate action to address adverse impacts that have been identified. In fact, the RIAS report shows an increase in catches for some fishing groups.

For example, the report says that the total rock lobster catch off Kangaroo Island for the first three months of the first season of sanctuary zones was 6.7 per cent higher compared with a year earlier. The report found no evidence that the rock lobster industry was negatively impacted by marine parks. The annual quota was successfully reached for the 2014-15 season, with historical catch rate data indicating that the most productive fishing grounds were not lost to sanctuary zones.

The South Australian Labor government does not share the state and federal Liberals' contempt for the marine environment. The South Australian Labor government recognises that, with the right balance, conservation and economic prosperity can coexist—a point that was made by the member for Flinders.

The South Australian government is committed to protecting South Australia's unique marine environment. This includes a doubling of the funding currently set aside for marine park monitoring to $750,000, and a doubling of the funding for habitat surveys and mapping in sanctuary zones to $100,000 a year, as well as more money to collect and process data.

The $1 million funding boost also includes new money to develop educational materials to promote the results of monitoring and targeted compliance activities at key monitoring locations. We want to protect our marine environment and we want to ensure that the state has well-managed marine parks with effective monitoring and compliance programs. This is in stark contrast to the Liberals, who only want to rip apart our marine park network.

During the development of our marine park network, the government carried out one of the state's most comprehensive public engagement processes ever undertaken. The government has worked with communities across the state for more than 10 years to develop the current marine parks. In 2009, an extensive engagement program was undertaken to consult on the marine park outer boundaries. Over 50 information days were held across the state and many more conversations took place outside these meetings.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The deputy leader is called to order.

The Hon. P. CAICA: To help prepare draft management plans and zoning arrangements, 13 marine park local advisory groups were established. These groups were made up of recreational fishers, local council representatives, conservationists, commercial fishers and other community interest groups. During the public consultation on the draft management plans, 41 information days were held, with around 40 additional stakeholder briefings.

There were 8,649 submissions received in response to the eight-week consultation and 50 changes were made to the proposed draft zoning. In addition, ongoing consultation occurred with the commercial and recreational fishing industries, the environmental sector, the Marine Parks Council, the scientific working group, local councils and a wide range of other stakeholders. This bill will undo years of work—work that will benefit the entire state well into the future.

Notwithstanding efforts to minimise the impact on commercial fishers, the government recognised that there may be some unavoidable impact on the industry. To deal with this, the government made a commitment to buy out sufficient fishing effort through a voluntary market-based process. I understand that the government ran a successful voluntary catch/effort reduction program.

The effort reduction targets for the relevant fisheries were calculated by the South Australian Research and Development Institute's aquatic sciences division using peer-reviewed methodology and the best available data. SARDI consulted with the commercial fishing industry and used historical catch and effort figures, as well as additional information provided by industry to estimate the average displacement as a result of sanctuary zone fishing restrictions.

As well as the buyout scheme, the government has made available compensation for any holder of a statutory authorisation who believes their rights have been affected by the creation of a marine park zone or a temporary restriction.

The opposition also likes to pretend that there is no science supporting marine parks. Marine parks are about conserving areas in their most pristine state. They are about ensuring that we protect some of our state's waters' most unique and valuable marine assets before they are damaged. This is something the Liberal Party ignores when they argue that marine parks should be designed based on a threats-based approach. This is a real point of difference.

Marine parks in South Australia are not set up to directly address threats: they are designed to protect our waters before the damage is done. We cannot afford the Liberals' 'wait until it is broken to fix it' approach. This puts our environment at risk and is completely at odds with the overwhelming scientific evidence available on marine parks. South Australia's marine parks have been developed based on the best and soundest science available, both locally, nationally and internationally. Marine parks have also been developed with the input of some of our state's most respected marine scientists.

A large range of scientific and other material was made publicly available during the marine parks planning process. Some of the extensive material included the 14 design principles that provide the scientific basis for the marine parks program that were developed after consideration of three decades of Australian and international marine protected areas scientific and management experience and a complete technical report explaining the processes of determining the outer boundaries of the proclaimed marine parks.

Values statements for each marine park were released which provided complete information about ecological, social and economic values of each park. Comprehensive ecological, social and economic impact statements were prepared for each park, and the Liberals continue to peddle untruths about marine parks despite this best available science and sometimes despite simple common sense.

The Liberals are also so desperate to wage a war against marine parks that they are resorting to egregious untruths, outrageously trying to link marine parks with garfish prices.

Mr Gardner: Who wrote this?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Those in opposition are falsely attributing garfish prices with—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —the implementation of marine park sanctuary zones a year ago. On any fair assessment for a period of time, the garfish biomass in the industry has either at best been under stress or at worst, depending on who you talk to, on the verge of collapse. So, for the benefit of the opposition, let me explain a bit about fish prices in South Australia.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: To ensure the sustainability of local fish species, Primary Industries and Regions SA's Fisheries and Aquaculture, in consultation with industry, have implemented the management arrangements for particular fisheries, including garfish.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Colton. I remind all members of standing orders 131 and 142. Several of you have already been called to order. We have visitors in the gallery this morning, and we need to conduct our debate in an orderly fashion. The member for Colton is entitled to continue his remarks in silence.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was on these management plans for garfish that include the implementation of seasonal closures to commercial fishing, changes to garfish size limits and net mesh sizes. These arrangements have been put in place to assist a rebuilding in stocks. I am pleased to report that early indications are, certainly in Spencer Gulf, that we are seeing some improvements in that particular garfish industry.

Let me again emphasise that marine parks were implemented on 1 October 2014, two years after the seasonal closures. The introduction of requirements for a larger mesh size for hauling nets and an increase to the commercial size limit have been largely driven by the commercial fishing industry in pursuit of improved sustainability outcomes for the fishery. Market information suggests that a supply of larger garfish to the market provides higher price returns for the fishers, and this is a positive for the industry.

I am going to conclude my remarks now by saying that the opposition is prepared to risk all that has been put in place with respect to marine parks. They place no importance whatsoever on the conservation of these areas. Management plans must be reviewed within 10 years, and I am pleased to say the government will bring that forward and do that during this term of government, and we are committed to doing that review. This work has already started.

Marine parks present a wealth of opportunities for our state that the opposition refuses to admit. Marine parks will complement our existing measures to manage our fisheries and boost our state's reputation as a source of clean, healthy seafood. They will also ensure that our marine park areas are protected for current and future generations. For the reasons presented here today, the government opposes the bill in its entirety and condemns the Liberal Party's ongoing campaign to erode environmental protection laws in this state.