Contents
-
Commencement
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
Parliament House Matters
-
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
Bills
-
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
Bills
-
-
Motions
-
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
Motions
-
-
Petitions
-
Parliamentary Procedure
-
Question Time
-
-
Ministerial Statement
-
-
Grievance Debate
-
-
Bills
-
-
Adjournment Debate
-
-
Answers to Questions
-
-
Estimates Replies
-
Bills
Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed.
Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:19): I thank members for their contributions. I am disappointed by the member for Colton and the words he has expressed. The reason the bill was introduced several weeks ago, debated today and voted upon today is to give regional communities a future. We completely agree with the principle of marine parks; we do not want to diminish them, but we want to make sure that reality comes into it, that the sanctuary zones can become habitat protection zones, and that recreational and professional fishers have the opportunity to exist in those communities.
We have looked at some key areas, and we hoped that the government would have changed its position on that. We are very disappointed by positions being announced before the economic impact study has even been completed, and disappointed that other independent members have not expressed their opinion. I acknowledge though, that, the member for Waite has put in writing to me that he continues to support the bill, as he did last year. I look forward to the passage of the legislation.
The house divided on the second reading:
Ayes 18
Noes 20
Majority 2
| AYES | ||
| Bell, T.S. | Chapman, V.A. | Duluk, S. |
| Gardner, J.A.W. | Griffiths, S.P. (teller) | Knoll, S.K. |
| McFetridge, D. | Pederick, A.S. | Pengilly, M.R. |
| Pisoni, D.G. | Redmond, I.M. | Sanderson, R. |
| Speirs, D. | Tarzia, V.A. | Treloar, P.A. |
| van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. | Williams, M.R. | Wingard, C. |
| NOES | ||
| Bedford, F.E. | Bettison, Z.L. | Brock, G.G. |
| Caica, P. (teller) | Close, S.E. | Cook, N. |
| Digance, A.F.C. | Gee, J.P. | Hildyard, K. |
| Kenyon, T.R. | Key, S.W. | Koutsantonis, A. |
| Mullighan, S.C. | Piccolo, A. | Picton, C.J. |
| Rankine, J.M. | Rau, J.R. | Snelling, J.J. |
| Weatherill, J.W. | Wortley, D. | |
| PAIRS | ||
| Goldsworthy, R.M. | Hughes, E.J. | Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. |
| Bignell, L.W.K. | Marshall, S.S. | Odenwalder, L.K. |
| Whetstone, T.J. | Vlahos, L.A. | |
While the division was in progress:
The SPEAKER: A principle of parliamentary decorum is that members of the gallery do not conduct themselves in such a way as to try to influence the outcome of the proceedings, so I would ask members in my gallery to my left to be seated or to leave the chamber.
The result of the division is that there being 18 ayes and 20 noes the motion for the second reading is lost.
Second reading thus negatived.
Opposition members: Shame!
There being a disturbance in the gallery:
The SPEAKER: Serjeant-at-Arms, would you please bring the man with the check shirt and the sunglasses to the bar.
The man having been escorted to the bar:
The SPEAKER: I know this gives the gentleman concerned the opportunity to further abuse parliamentary procedure. Serjeant-at-Arms, would you escort the man to North Terrace and take his name. And that is for abuse of parliamentary procedure—shouting insults from the gallery—which members of the opposition, if they give it any thought, would know is a very, very bad development.