MARINE PARKS

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:41): I move:

That this council calls on the Minister for Environment and Conservation to place an immediate moratorium on the imposition of the draft sanctuary zones contained within the Marine Parks' outer boundaries for South Australia.

This issue of marine parks has had a long gestation and I risk having repeated myself in previous debates and forums, where I went through the background to the marine parks issue, which began in the mid-1990s, when the former Liberal government was in office, and a document called 'Our Season Coasts: A Maritime and Estuary Strategy for South Australia' was released, with a comprehensive guide to marine protected areas being published in April 2000.

The 2002 Liberal election policy indicated our desire to complete the work by 2006 and the state had a long-standing obligation to establish a system of marine parks within the state's waters, flowing from the commonwealth's international obligations to the convention on biological diversity.

So it was in the Rann government's second term that it passed a Marine Parks Bill, which had to be amended by Liberals and Greens to ensure that all interests would be properly consulted. The 19 park outer boundaries were proclaimed on 29 January 2009. They were then amended, and the next process is the one that is the subject of this particular motion, which is the zones and management plans, and another process which is taking place is the displaced effort regulations.

I would have to say that some of my colleagues have expressed concerns about the size of the outer boundaries and said that people would be locked out of fishing and so forth. I have never shared those concerns because I believe that it is the sanctuary zones and management plans which are the critical issues which will determine what activities will take place and what will be excluded from those particular parks.

I think it is important in this debate that just about everybody that I have spoken to, including those who oppose these particular sanctuary zones, believe in marine parks and sanctuary zones, and are concerned about ensuring that we have environmental conservation of our marine habitats and biodiversity.

However, the process of the establishment of these sanctuary zones—or draft sanctuary zones, I think the government is calling them—has just been absolutely appalling. They were released in November last year. There is a process for each local park which is through the Marine Parks Local Advisory Groups (MPLAGs) and they consist largely of people who are local community representatives. It is my understanding that each of those MPLAGs did not have any input into those draft sanctuary zones and it is also my understanding that they have not been provided with the information as to why the government has chosen those particular zones, which has very grave concerns for transparency.

I also note that the minister has stated that arbitrary percentages—that is, percentages of each of the 19 parks to be set aside for sanctuary zones—would not be chosen, but this is contradicted by the department's documentation, which states that one of the zoning guidelines is that sanctuary zones should cover about 20 to 25 per cent of each marine park.

It is my belief that each marine park and each of its zones should be guided by good scientific evidence. I understand that there is a lack of that at this time, and that is very unfortunate. That work needs to be undertaken posthaste. I do not have a particular fixed view about what percentage of each marine park should be within a sanctuary zone; I think that depends on what environment exists in each park, and I will refer to some scientific references later that talk about some of the international evidence regarding marine parks.

I think the reaction from communities, which are all in regional areas—none of them is in the metropolitan area, which is, I think, a typical strategy of this government; it is quite happy to impose things on regional communities—is that they feel betrayed. A number of people provided input into what their fishing spots were and so forth and ,lo and behold, some of those areas are right the middle of a sanctuary zone.

What the government thinks it is doing with this process is beyond me, if it wants to have community support for marine parks. I think these coastal regional communities are very cynical at the moment. They do not trust the government at all. They were prepared to accept the outer boundaries on the basis that the sanctuary zones would not be designed to deliberately harm them.

I think we also need to be aware that we live in a liberal democracy in Australia, and governments cannot just take away people's rights without giving them a valid reason. I think that is the basis of what is at fault with this particular process. Marine parks will not work unless the process is transparent and the community supports them and is actively involved in the process. Further, the marine parks management program has been cut by $1.5 million in the out years of the current budget, so one wonders who will police these sanctuary zones.

In estimates, the minister referred to the fact that one method to enforce marine parks may be through Fishwatch, which, I understand, is a bumper sticker with a telephone number that people can call. Individuals themselves are not able to take action if they see something going on that they think should not be taking place; presumably, they would call someone who is an authorised officer and report it to them. However, if they are cynical about marine parks I suspect they are less likely to be involved in that process.

In relation to the technical information about why the zones have been chosen, I am quite happy to tell the world that I have lodged a freedom of information application for each of them. If I do not receive that information I will be very disappointed, because I think it is key to the process and goes to the heart of transparency regarding the zoning. People have complained that the maps on the marine parks' website are very difficult to follow and do not provide clear definitions or GPS data as to where each zone starts and finishes.

I think the government needs talk to regional communities directly about how these proposals will affect them. Can I just say that I foreshadowed that exactly this scenario would take place when I sought to amend the Marine Park's Amendment Bill last year in this place because I had a suspicion that we just could not trust this government to do the right thing by communities.

People have said to us at public meetings that boating will become more dangerous because there will be restrictions to launching sites. This will force people in smaller boats to travel further offshore to fish or to other sites. Charter boat operators are already flagging that boating will be more risky because, for those in smaller boats who may get into trouble, the charter boats are the frontline vessels used in case of emergency, and some of those, particularly on Kangaroo Island, will be relocating interstate if the sanctuary zones are implemented as they have been published.

I have referred to the lack of resources for policing, which again goes to the lack of transparency, and I think that these proposals do not acknowledge that significant damage occurs to the marine environment from coastal development and pollution, yet these issues remain unaddressed. I understand that our fisheries are at least reasonably well managed, and some of the best managed in the world, through mechanisms such as bags, size limits and restrictions on seasons, and commercial fishers are subject to strict controls through PIRSA fisheries.

Again, I have sought information from the government. I have formally asked for a briefing to be provided to members of parliament by PIRSA fisheries so that we can be told how to interpret their fish stock reports, because they claim that some of those have been misinterpreted for the purpose of advancing the cause of marine parks, and if that is the case, then we would like that information, please.

I am not going to quote all of them, but I have some letters from people who have written to the minister and cc'd myself, and some of this stuff is in the public domain on websites that have been established following the release of the sanctuary zones. This letter is from somebody who has an interest at Hardwicke Bay. He says:

One important issue is how little was known about the marine park and how ineffective the communication channels have been into a transient community such as the one at Hardwicke Bay. Of some 300-350 property owners, this small community is made up of some permanent residents, but mostly holidaymakers who come and go, but don't at any one time meet in any structured way.

He says:

One common thread, however, is that virtually all the community are fishing the bay. My observations in 14 years of fishing and enjoying many other aspects of life on Southern Yorke Peninsula are these:

The bay is in much better condition than any of the metropolitan beaches, with extensive seagrass beds widely distributed in a top condition. Catch rates vary considerably across the species available, and everyone I know observes bag and size limits religiously and therefore self-regulate and fish in a sustainable and responsible manner…The majority of local fishermen have small boats and tinnies, some rowing without a motor, and do not have safe access to offshore waters….I do not have any objection to the spirit and intent of identifying marine parks and sanctuary zones, in fact I think it is a good thing—we have national parks and animal sanctuaries on land, so why not on strategic seas and coastal areas to protect vulnerable and sensitive areas and species? At the meeting recently, I must say that that is not a view held by some longstanding members of the Hardwicke Bay community. However, I strongly believe that the proposed ‘no-fishing' areas in Hardwicke Bay could be better thought through to provide safe and sustainable fishing grounds for those who want to use the bay recreationally.

Another letter, which has been published on a website, states:

I am a 59-year-old recreational fisherman with no commercial interests in the industry. I am an active participant on local internet fishing forums and I oppose the implementation process for the new sanctuary zones...I understand the need and totally agree that we should have marine parks in South Australia and no-take zones within those parks. I believe that this is also the majority view of those on the forums and all those with whom I have discussed the matter. My opposition is based entirely around the process that has been used by DENR to establish marine parks and zoning. I believe that this flawed process has alienated many recreational fishers in SA and created much of the current opposition and mistrust.

He goes on further to make a number of points. There are letters from the Sellicks Area Residents Association and people who are familiar with Kangaroo Island and Yorke Peninsula, Fleurieu Marine Park Local Area Group proposal and one from Port Lincoln, and many, many others and they all echo much of the same sentiment.

Can I just say, too, that there has been some discussion on talkback radio and in the newspapers, and I resent the implication that is has been members of parliament who have been whipping up some of the angst in the communities. This issue was so well highlighted to me when I visited Kangaroo Island, Fleurieu Peninsula, Port Lincoln more recently, and other areas where people are absolutely gobsmacked about the proposals. No whipping up of sentiment occurred. These people came along to meetings all revved up and very angry and feeling betrayed, as I have said.

I think that that is spin on behalf of this government and spin to say that these sanctuary zones are not a government proposal but a starting point. If they are in the government proposal and have been published by government, then whose are they?

I will complete my remarks by referring to a couple of reports, one being from Nature—a very prestigious magazine and publisher. There is an article that has been published by Daniel Cressey, a one-pager, headed 'Plans for marine protection highlight science gap', with the subheading 'Researchers are scrambling to understand how best to deploy conservation zones'. It refers to some research that has been published by Tundi Agardy, an environmental consultant based in Massachusetts.

She has published a paper in Marine Policy, in which she identifies five possible shortcomings in marine protected areas. These are: first, that they are too small to be effective; secondly, that they may simply drive fishing into other areas; and, thirdly, they create an illusion of protection when none is actually occurring. Many are poorly planned or managed and can fail all too easily because of environmental degradation of waters just outside the area.

The article also states that sometimes the marine protected area, which has a purpose of protecting a particular species, has missed a sizable proportion of the species' core range. Her study showed that MPAs can benefit fisheries in adjacent waters but that the degree of the effect depends heavily on the size of the area and the quality of its management. There is a conclusion that each MPA needs a unique design, depending on its goals.

The conclusion is that conservationists should approach the design and siting of an MPA as a bit of an experiment, which comes back to the point that the environment department does not know where everything is. There are further reports referring to the fact that there needs to be shared responsibility between government and users rather than just a top down approach.

There is a lot of research; I am currently trawling—excuse the pun—through a great deal of reports and published material which talk about marine parks. There is quite a lot of it in the research domain. However, marine parks are still a relatively new phenomenon, so trying to find a consensus as to how effective they are is quite difficult.

I think that more work needs to be done in this particular area, but I cannot see how the way the government has gone about this process and completely ticked off regional communities, rather than genuinely consulting with them, will even benefit the cause of conservation per se, because it makes people cynical. They become disengaged, they have no trust, and they are less willing to participate in a process which, quite frankly, depends on them to be involved if it is ever going to be effective. With those remarks, I commend the motion to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

[Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:49]