ENCOUNTER MARINE PARK

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (15:20): I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Minister for Environment and Conservation a question about the Encounter Marine Park proposal.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: I have a paper from a constituent who raises a number of concerns regarding the establishment of the Encounter Marine Park, as it has progressed at this stage. He is a person with considerable experience in aquatic matters and has put out this particular paper to which I will refer. The paper states:

A sensibly designed marine park or aquatic reserve system should actively assess threats in regions recognised as having a rich biodiversity and come up with practical measures that contribute towards minimising the potential impact of these threats.

The Encounter Marine Park proposal as it stands and the process that has been followed to date achieves next to none of this. The documentation that has been released to date...contains almost none of what I consider are the key prerequisites required to support a proposition for a marine park in the area—

1. A detailed spacial account of the habitat types across the region, especially habitats that are considered to be representative of the bioregion and critical to biodiversity conservation

2. A detailed spacial and temporal account of the oceanography of the region

3. A detailed spacial and temporal account of the distribution and abundance of animal and plant species of the region, especially threatened or vulnerable species, and associations with key habitat types and oceanographic events

4. A detailed account of what the principal threats are to biodiversity conservation within the marine park (e.g. stormwater and effluent) and development of alternative measures to address these threats

5. A detailed analysis of the impacts of proposed sanctuary zones and alternate sanctuary zones on recreational and commercial fish stocks...

6. A detailed analysis of the negative impacts of proposed sanctuary zones and alternate sanctuary zones on recreational and commercial fishing activities including small boat safety issues

7. A detailed modelling of the economic and social impacts of the proposed park especially in relation to the effects of different sanctuary zone options in order to develop an optimal sanctuary zone system that minimises economic and social hardship while providing the required level of protection for biodiversity...

8. A detailed analysis of the monitoring, enforcement and management costs of a marine park, especially in relation to proposed sanctuary zones...The 2005 draft zoning plan had zero prior input from the community other than through a consultative committee that appeared to meet in secret and not publish minutes.

As we all know, the development of the Encounter Marine Park was to be the flagship from which all the other marine parks were to begin their planning. My questions are:

1. Will the minister outline what, if any, of the eight prerequisites that I have just read out have been or will be undertaken?

2. When will this happen, if it has not happened already?

3. When will any such analyses, if they are available, be published?

4. Will there be true community consultation from now on?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (15:24): Indeed, Encounter Marine Park has been a pilot project for the first of the 19 marine parks which this government has committed to establish by the year 2010. We are committed not only to providing 19 world-class representative marine park areas focused on our very precious marine environment but we are also committed to ensuring that each park be for multiuse so that other water users are able to use those parks in sustainable ways.

As I said, we established the Encounter Bay Marine Park as a pilot project; and, certainly, we did gain a great deal of knowledge and experience from that pilot project. A great deal of consultation did occur with respect to putting together a draft plan. A wide range of public meetings were held, and stakeholder groups were involved in that process. It was quite a comprehensive and lengthy process. There is ample opportunity for any member of the community to put forward their concerns or particular points of view, and I invite the person to whom the Hon. Caroline Schaefer refers to do so.

The outcome of that first round of consultation resulted in a draft plan which, in turn, will go back out for further consultation. Again, there is still ample opportunity for public and stakeholder input into that. A consultative committee, if my memory serves me correctly, has recently been reconvened. I understand that below that consultative group we are considering putting together a broader community or stakeholder reference group that can involve even broader representation than before.

I am happy, once those details have been finalised, to make them publicly available. As well as that, a scientific work group does provide advice to me. That group is still convened and would be happy to receive any further input or advice to which the honourable member might refer.