MARINE PARKS (PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 October 2010.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:58): I want to say at the outset that the Greens strongly support the creation of a network of marine parks for South Australia. We agree with the bumper sticker produced by the Wilderness Society, and that is that marine parks are great for our state.

Marine parks have been controversial in most jurisdictions, yet I think there is now a growing awareness in the general community that a system of marine protected areas is absolutely essential for the long-term viability of our commercial fishing industry and our recreational fishing industry and also vital for the preservation of marine biodiversity.

When we debated the Marine Parks (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment Bill in this place not that long ago, I noted, as did other members, that what we were doing was putting in place a framework for the creation of marine parks but that the real test would be whether the government was prepared to put in place a management regime (or, in this case, management plans) that would not just enshrine business as usual in the sea but provide genuine protection for marine biodiversity and for the important habitat (in particular, nursery habitat) for both commercially and recreationally fished species.

In fact, if all our marine parks did was to enshrine business as usual, we would be better off without them; they would be a waste of paper. My fear is that, unless the marine parks—and, in particular, the proposed sanctuary zones within those marine parks—are sufficiently large and well managed, the system of marine protected areas will fail to protect marine life in South Australia in the long run. I put on the record my appreciation to minister Caica for the briefing provided by his officers. I want to come to the fairly simple but important changes that are made in this amending bill to the regime for the creation of management plans under the act.

In a nutshell, what the bill proposes is that amendments to management plans are now to be subject to a direct parliamentary disallowance whether or not a parliamentary committee has made such a recommendation. Under the existing act the only trigger for disallowance was if the Environment, Resources and Development Committee recommended disallowance. Under this amending bill, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee is now out of the picture, and it has been replaced with the Legislative Review Committee.

Members might, no doubt, be thinking that is not at all a logical outcome. The Environment, Resources and Development Committee is the committee responsible for looking at a whole range of planning processes, whether they be plans for the use of land (development plans under the Development Act), plans for the management of aquaculture under the Aquaculture Act, plans for the management of national parks under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, or wilderness areas under the Wilderness Protection Act, and even plans and policy documents under the Environment Protection Act.

These all fit within the statutory responsibilities of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. So, it is odd that these important plans, these plans for marine parks, are now no longer the responsibility of that committee. Instead, the government has made a compromise with, as I understand it, representatives of the fishing industry that these plans should be subject to the same disallowance mechanism as subordinate legislation such as regulations under the Subordinate Legislation Act. In other words, the changes brought about by this bill will make it easier to disallow changes to marine park management plans.

The Greens' position is that we can live with this change and so we will be supporting the second reading of the legislation, but we do have some misgivings about the transfer of responsibility from a committee with some expertise in environmental matters to a committee that may well have less. The proposed regime under this bill is that amendments to marine park management plans will be tabled in both houses of parliament, and they can be disallowed in the same way as regulations.

Simultaneously, the plans will be sent to the Legislative Review Committee, under the capable leadership of the Hon. Russell Wortley, as I understand it, and his committee will look at them. That committee will have the ability to hear from witnesses and to ask questions, and it will have the ability to recommend disallowance as well. In a nutshell, the key change that is being made here is the ability for direct disallowance by either house of parliament, even in the absence of any recommendation of a standing committee of this parliament.

When it comes to zoning the sea, the government is now making it easier for parliament to disallow any changes that are made to these management plans. When it comes to zoning the land, the only mechanism for parliament to disallow a rezoning, is for the matter to first be referred to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee and, of course, as members would know, that committee has never resulted in a terrestrial rezoning being disallowed. There are a very small number of cases where the committee has resolved to recommend disallowance, but not once in 16 years has that resolve translated into a motion, as I understand it, let alone a decision of either house of parliament.

My take on all of this is that, if the government was serious in its new found commitment to parliamentary democracy—if it was serious, as it appears to now be with marine parks, it would move to allow either house of parliament to amend terrestrial rezonings in exactly the same way that this bill proposes to provide for disallowance of marine park rezoning.

My strong suspicion is that the government will go nowhere near such an amendment and the government's relationship with elements of the property development industry will be at the heart of its refusal to act consistently in relation to terrestrial and marine rezoning.

The bottom line in relation to this legislation is that we have to make sure that the initial management plans for marine parks are absolutely the best and strongest we can possibly get. The reason I say that is because we cannot bank on these management plans being improved over time simply because we are now making it easier for them to be disallowed. In other words, if we do not get the strongest plan but get a weak plan as an initial plan, that will be a legacy that haunts us for many years, because any subsequent attempt by a government to strengthen the plan in response, for example, to changes wrought by climate change, sea temperature changes, and so on, will be very difficult because it will have to run the gamut of both houses of parliament. I make the point, as one constituent wrote to me on this issue saying:

It is a great shame that the political system is not able to cope with adaptive management as that would ultimately be the best outcome for marine life in South Australia, making our oceans more resilient and able to cope with shocks from climate change, disease, overfishing, etc.

I agree that we do not have a robust system for adaptive management. The reason why, without becoming overly philosophical, is that it cuts against the desire we also have for certainty. In some ways, adaptive management is almost the enemy of certainty because it requires that, as circumstances change, we can readily and rapidly change our management practices to accommodate changed circumstances. Adaptive management needs us to be able to recognise that circumstances have changed and respond quickly. I think with this bill that will become more difficult.

I do not want to be pessimistic and assume that any changes to management plans will necessarily trigger a disallowance motion, but given how hard fought negotiations are currently around these initial marine park management plans, my fear is that, as climate change progresses, if the government of the day, the environment department, realises that we will have to increase the size of sanctuary areas if we are interested in protecting the fish stocks that the Hon. John Gazzola and others are so keen to take advantage of, if we have to change the size of sanctuary zones to protect the nursery, the habitat and the species in the long term, it could well be difficult.

I believe the fishing industry is slowly coming to realise that marine parks are in their best interests.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Michelle Lensink tells me that the fishing industry has always supported marine parks. I hope the Hon. Michelle Lensink's optimism is well founded. As I said at the outset, it is one thing to support the concept but another to support the lines on the map that create the no-take zones that are so important for species to be able to flourish.

I conclude by saying that I look forward to seeing the initial management plans that are shortly to go out to public consultation. I understand they should be in place by the middle of 2012, which is still some way off but it provides for a lengthy period of consultation. I hope those plans are strong and robust, and I hope they do not require amendment any time soon because, with this legislation, we will make it more difficult to amend them.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.