Grievance Debate

Marine Parks, Sanctuary Zones

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:03): I cannot wait to hear what the environment movement thinks of that last answer, being implied to be complicit with the dismantling of three significant sanctuary zones in the marine parks network. I am not surprised that the minister does not want to hear my grievance.

We understand how important the marine parks network is and we understand how important the oceans are. They are important to the environment, but they are important to the tourism industry, to the fishing industry, to recreational fishers and to local towns and people who live along our great coastline. And what has this government decided to do? It has decided to first of all get a review and then ignore that review. It has ignored that review by choosing to dismantle the very heart of the marine parks system, which is the sanctuary zones—and the minister has just implied that that was by the agreement of the environment movement. That is not true, and we will be hearing more about that, I have no doubt.

Why would you do that? Why would you dismantle the sanctuary zones? I have come up with six reasons that you might. Let's see what their review had to say about those reasons. Maybe you do not think that the sanctuary zones are adequately protecting the environment. I quote from their review:

[SZs] are considered to be the key zone type for protection and conservation of biodiversity within the marine parks network.

What about if the establishment process was wrong; we did not do this right in the first place? I quote from their review:

The establishment of SA marine parks, their management plans and zoning has been a 20-year process. This process followed a robust governance framework with a comprehensive consultation program.

The marine parks network has been developed…to contribute to the long-term ecological viability of marine and estuarine systems to maintain ecological processes and systems and to protect South Australia's marine biodiversity.

Is it because commercial fishing was more affected than had first been understood?

Analysis of individual fishery trends indicates there has been a continuation of existing trends with no obvious change since 2014…indicating that the Marine Park zoning has not been a contributing factor affecting the sustainability of these fisheries.

In fact (and I am not quoting now; this is my comment), largely you have to wait five to 10 years to see if marine park networks and sanctuary zones have had a positive impact on the environment. I quote:

…changes in rock lobster populations were detected quite rapidly inside the Cape du Couedic SZ—

the one that four-fifths is being dismantled by this government. Is it because recreational fishing has been more affected than first thought?

As expected from the marine park policy commitments, recreational fishing has not been significantly affected…

Okay, not that reason. Is it because the socio-economic impact was too high, as the minister implied in his answer?

Comparative analysis of socio-economic trends…has not shown any discernible trend difference between adjacent and comparative towns, indicating that the Marine Park zoning has not been a contributing factor affecting the socio-economic performance of these towns.

Potentially reason No. 5, because South Australia's water environment is not that important, so you can mess around with it and it does not matter, quote:

The marine [park] waters off the southern coast of Australia contain an unusually high level of endemism—

that means that the species come from that area uniquely—

as well as species richness and is recognised as a global biodiversity 'hotspot'.

Our waters matter. This government has run out of reasons. In fact, the three areas that are having their sanctuary zones dismantled are, and I am quoting from the report again, 'particularly high in biodiversity'.

So what are we seeing? The Neptune Islands, a three-quarters reduction in the sanctuary zones; Cape du Couedic, a four-fifths reduction; Clinton Wetlands, a four-fifths reduction. Yet, and I go back to quoting from the government's report that they hid for well over a year:

Modifying the…zoning arrangements…will reduce the effectiveness of the marine park network in protecting and conserving marine biodiversity habitats.

Why is this? Those six reasons are clearly not the reasons. You know what it is? My theory: this minister thinks he is smarter than everybody. This minister does not listen to experts. We saw it in the Murray-Darling Basin and now we are seeing it in marine parks. This minister thinks he knows more than the scientists he himself commissions.