Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest MATTERS OF INTEREST Marine Protected Areas MARINE PROTECTED AREAS The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER Legislative Council The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (15:31): I would like to spend time today talking about my concern—and I think the concern of many people—with the government's proposed marine protection areas. I note that they are called marine protection areas, not marine parks. There is a tendency to call them marine parks, which conjures up nice, comfortable recreation areas for recreational fishermen. I want to make it quite clear that as far back as 1998 the Liberal Party released its 'Seas and Coasts: a maritime and estuarine strategy for South Australia'. It was quite comprehensive and outlined our views on the development of marine protected areas within South Australia. In April 2000, we published a guide to marine protected areas, and our 2002 election policy indicated that we intended to have this work completed by 2006. At the launch of that policy we had the agreement of the Seafood Council and the Conservation Council, who jointly released that policy with us. I make it quite clear that the Liberal Party is not against the development of marine protected areas. Far from it: we acknowledge the necessity to do so. However, this government has taken a long time to develop a policy whereby 50 per cent, or thereabouts, of the state's waters will be subject to some type of marine protection and, to use the colloquial, I want to know—if the government simply wants to protect areas under threat for biodiversity; and it is a small area which will not affect commercial fisheries or recreational fishers—why does it need most areas of the state's waters, which in fact are used by both commercial and recreational fishermen? If you need a five acre paddock, why would you put a fence around 500 acres? It simply makes no sense. Why would the government not outline and establish where these areas of concern are and reach agreement with the commercial fishers and the Conservation Council as to where those protected zones should be, rather than say, 'We will turn the whole lot into a protected zone and then we will let you know after that where the zoning is and what activities are to take place within this designated area.' It appears to me that the act provides that the zones can be proclaimed by the minister of the day. A large number of people are showing concern. There are some 320,000 recreational fishers in South Australia, many of whom are expressing their concern about how and when they will be allowed to fish under this system. Why would the government not let us know that in advance so that agreement can be reached? The Hon. J.M. Gazzola interjecting: The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER Legislative Council The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: The Hon. Mr Gazzola interjects that it has. It has not. It has simply said that 45 per cent of the state's waters—almost all the waters that anyone wants to fish in—access to the beach and all of that will have a big fence around it, then the government will let us know what we can do inside that fence. Why will the government not let us know now? Is this, by stealth, a method of getting control of fisheries under the auspices of the environment department instead of under the auspices of the Department of Primary Industries, as it should be? South Australia has one of the most sustainable fisheries in the world. People travel from all over the world to see how we have regulated our fisheries, largely voluntarily, so that they are sustainable. The ACTING PRESIDENT Legislative Council Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I point out to the honourable member that she was going for a considerable time before the clock started. She has 30 seconds from now to conclude. The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER Legislative Council The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: That is not fair; I was just getting warmed up. I will continue this theme. This is putting the cart well and truly before the horse. The government is being pig-headed and failing to acknowledge public concern and the affect that this will have on regional South Australia. There is an opportunity to do this better, and I appeal to the government for once to stop being so arrogant and to listen to those whose livelihoods are affected by this piece of legislation. Time expired.