MARINE PARKS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink:

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.

(Continued from 9 February 2011.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:02): The Greens will not be supporting this motion, which calls on this council to call 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.

There has been much media discussion in all forms, including online forums and even in speeches made in this parliament over the last couple of months, regarding the supposed negative impact that marine park sanctuary zones might have on coastal communities in South Australia. Most of these allegations are unsubstantiated, and they are at odds with the overwhelming consensus of marine scientists, who conclude that sanctuary zones not only conserve marine life but also provide a long-term benefit to fishing and other activities dependent on marine resources, such as tourism.

Fish stocks are under pressure and declining catch rates in South Australia are a reflection of a global pattern of resource decline. Pollution is responsible for some of the drop in marine life in our coastal waters, especially around Adelaide, but overfishing is by far the biggest threat. Eighty per cent of the world's fish stocks are either being fished to their absolute limit or are already overfished. Global catches peaked in the late 1980s and have fallen drastically ever since. South Australia is not immune and, even with all the different fisheries management strategies at our disposal, catch rates are falling for key commercial species, including the lucrative southern rock lobster.

It is often suggested that recreational fishing has little impact on the marine environment, and it is true that recreational fishers individually have minimal impact. However, collectively, recreational fishers in 2007-08 caught 1.25 million King George whiting, which was nearly half of the total harvest. For southern calamari, the total recreational catch was 40 per cent of the total harvest, or 484,000 fish caught. These are large volumes of biomass that are being removed by recreational fishers.

South Australia needs sanctuary zones, and they need to be based on international best practice scientific guidelines. Eighty-five to 90 per cent of the marine life in South Australian waters is found nowhere else on Earth, and less than 1 per cent of the marine environment is protected in the equivalent of terrestrial national parks. These points are being lost in the negative political battle that has been whipped up over the issue of marine conservation, not just in our state, but nationally. What is an overwhelmingly positive initiative has been turned into a campaign of fear and misinformation.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink's call for an immediate moratorium on the imposition of the draft sanctuary zones contained within the marine parks' outer boundaries makes no sense to me. The sanctuary zones are clearly a draft and they are out there for consultation. A call for a moratorium is a call for less debate rather than more over how to protect the marine environment.

According to recent commentary on fishing in South Australia, you would think that the seas are still teeming with fish. The member for Flinders said, in a speech in another place on 10 February this year:

South Australia's fisheries are amongst the best in the world and that industry has an intimate understanding of fishing stocks and sustainability and South Australia especially has world's best practice when it comes to balancing the need for protection of habitat with the necessity of fishing the waters of this state. The proof is in the pudding.

Evidence, however, would suggest the opposite. The Department of Primary Industries and Resources' own catch-rate data shows that iconic commercial species are experiencing falling catch rates. A classic example, as I mentioned before, is the southern rock lobster. Although the peak body representing the fishing sector claims in a letter sent to editors of newspapers on 7 February this year that the industry is sustainable, the government's own data paints a very different picture. Rock lobster catch rates have been in decline for seven years.

The honourable member in moving this motion consistently refers to problems in the process of consultation, and I agree with her that this phase of the consultation process has had problems, not the least of which is the government's failure to put its scientific advisers in the public arena to explain in plain English terms their proposals for marine sanctuary zones in South Australia.

However, this does not mean that we have to place a moratorium on sanctuary zones. It means we have to improve the lines of communication from the scientific community to the public arena. The honourable member says, ‘The government needs to talk to regional communities directly about how these proposals will affect them.' Well, of course they should, but what the honourable member is forgetting is that this is precisely where the conflict has arisen: from the public consultation that is taking place around South Australia. You fix poor consultation with better consultation; you do not fix it by gutting marine parks.

Another area where I agree with the mover of this motion is in relation to the issues she raises about the shortcomings identified by Agardy in her paper about why some marine-protected areas do not work, such as many being too small. However, the honourable member's moratorium motion is about process, whereas the Agardy paper examines the results of the implementation of sanctuary zones, and we are nowhere near that point yet in South Australia.

The current phase of the process is to ensure that the shortcomings identified by Agardy, such as the zones being too small to offer true protection, are not repeated here in South Australia. The honourable member claims that marine parks are 'a relatively new phenomenon, so trying to find a consensus as to how effective they are is quite difficult'. I disagree with that statement. It is correct to say that in South Australia marine parks are a relatively new phenomenon but, in other states and around the world, marine parks have been in place for over 70 years.

Australia's first marine park was established in 1937 at Green Island in North Queensland, and we have had plenty of time to develop and implement marine parks in many states since then. I take the opportunity to refer members to a letter that was written a few months ago, in August last year, but it is a letter that came to my attention only recently. It is an open letter by some 150 or so scientists to both Prime Minister Julia Gillard and opposition leader Tony Abbott. In this open letter, entitled 'Science Supporting Marine Protected Areas', these scientists say the following:

Dear Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott

Recently articles have appeared in State and national press suggesting that there is little or no scientific evidence to support the creation of systems of marine protected areas. This is false. In this letter we briefly discuss the scientific evidence that shows marine protected areas have very positive impacts on biodiversity, and in many cases fisheries as well. Some reserve systems also produce substantial economic benefits through tourism, as well as providing important educational, inspirational and research opportunities.

This letter was coordinated jointly by two leading academics, Dr Jon Nevill and Professor Hugh Possingham, now of the University of Queensland, who many members will remember from his days as a leading academic in South Australia. I will not read the whole of the letter, but the number one point they make, under the heading 'Government actions needed', reads as follows:

[Governments need to] recognize the importance of...[marine protected areas] in mitigating major threats to marine biodiversity. Set area protection targets ensuring at least 10% of all ecosystem types have no-take protection, with vulnerable, rare and iconic ecosystems, and special and unique habitats, protected at higher levels.

That conclusion is very much consistent with what I believe the government is trying to achieve with marine parks here, and it is a statement the Greens support as well.

Because this letter might not have reached many members (as I have said, over 150 academics are named in it), I thought I would put on the record the South Australian academics who signed this letter, and there are half a dozen or so of them. They are: Dr Bayden Russell, Southern Seas Ecology Laboratories at the University of Adelaide; Dr Bronwyn Gillanders, Marine Ecology, from the University of Adelaide (many members would have met her in relation to her work on the giant Australian cuttlefish in Upper Spencer Gulf); Professor Corey Bradshaw, Ecological Modelling, University of Adelaide; Luciana Moller, marine mammal ecologist from Flinders University; Dr Luciano Beheregaray, molecular ecology and conservation genetics at Flinders University; Patricia von Baumgarten, oceanographer from Nairne; and Dr Paul van Ruth, biological oceanographer from Port Noarlunga.

There are two more I am particularly pleased to mention; one is Dr Scoresby Shepherd AO, benthic ecologist from Henley, now retired but a former, very prominent scientist working for the South Australian public sector and a person for whom I have had a great deal of respect for many decades. The final of the South Australian academics on this list is Dr Sue Murray-Jones, marine biologist from Henley Beach South, who greatly assisted this parliament through the inquiry that was conducted by the ERD Committee just a year or two ago. These scientists have signed this open letter to both the major parties certainly, and they sent it to the Greens as well. I think their case is overwhelming that the science does support marine protected areas.

To return to the current motion, the honourable member makes some comments about the lack of resources for compliance and monitoring. I agree with her that this is a clear issue that needs addressing. The government must fund this program of marine protected areas and it must fund it properly. However, I do not agree with the implication in the honourable member's comments that South Australians will do the wrong thing if enforcement is not visible at all times.

As the member said, 'Everyone I know observes bag limits religiously.' Well, you cannot have it both ways. I know the vast majority of South Australians will abide by the rules when sanctuary zones are put in place. Although the budget cuts to marine parks need to be reversed, this issue is not a reason to put in place a moratorium on sanctuary zones in South Australia. I think the vast majority of South Australians will do the right thing, especially if the government improves its communication as to the science behind these sanctuary zones.

I do take issue with the honourable member's comment that boating will become more dangerous because there will be restrictions to launching sites. I do not think this is true. The government has in place a policy, as I understand it, which is supported by the proposed zoning arrangements, that not one single boat ramp will be made out of bounds as a consequence of the zones. Whilst a few individuals who currently launch their boats informally from remote beaches may have to travel to a formal boat ramp, that hardly makes boating more dangerous.

I would also challenge anyone to provide examples from other parts of Australia or, indeed, the world where sanctuaries have been in place for many years where a fatality or a serious injury has occurred due to a marine park zoning arrangement. I do not think that this is any reason to be placing a moratorium on sanctuary zones in South Australia.

It is worth reminding ourselves why sanctuary zones are being proposed, and it is not just the scientific evidence from the letter that I referred to. We need to remember that sanctuary zones are the only parts of a marine park that will actually conserve marine life from exploitive activity. All the other zones within a marine park, which will make up about 90 per cent of state waters, will allow exploitation, including fishing—both commercial and recreational—at some level.

So, whilst we know that sanctuary zones are proven to be of benefit to fish stocks, we also need to remember that what we are talking about is conserving the 85 to 90 per cent of the species which consist of unique marine life found off the coast of South Australia. Sanctuary zones are proven to be a win-win solution. They both conserve marine life and help to manage fish stocks.

In her speech, the Hon. Michelle Lensink made repeated calls for government transparency, and I agree—we all want that—but what she fails to acknowledge is that the fishing industry has never been open and transparent either with the community or with government regulators. The commercial fishing community consistently refuses to release any data about where they fish and how much they catch in various locations.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the fish in the sea are not private property; we all have responsibility for them. I think it is a bit rich to complain that the environment department does not know where everything is when the fishing industry refuses to share that information with government officers. The industry does not want to be told where they cannot fish but they refuse to disclose where their key commercial fishing spots are located.

As the honourable member noted in her speech, Agardy concludes that marine protected areas 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. Each marine protected area needs a unique design, depending on its goals. I would say that this is precisely what the current consultation will achieve if it is allowed to run its full course. It will ensure that a balance between resource use and conservation is achieved.

If we stop now, as proposed by the honourable member, due to the reaction of fishers, we will cheat the right of other stakeholders to be heard during this consultation process. It is surely our responsibility to proceed with the process, not just to react to the complaints of one group at the very start of the consultation process. I, for one, want to uphold the rights of all South Australian citizens to contribute to this important process.

The honourable member also implies that the metropolitan area is not having to carry any of the marine protected area heavy lifting, as it were, and presumably this is alluding to some sort of country versus city divide, but I do not think that these arguments stack up. The objective of the Marine Park Act is to protect biodiversity and we all know that the metropolitan coastline is heavily degraded, and I do not need to detain the chamber as to why this is so, but Adelaide already has a long-standing aquatic reserve at Aldinga and, as I understand it, a sanctuary zone is proposed over the existing aquatic reserve.

It is also worth remembering that the consultation process that we are at the beginning of will continue for at least another nine months and if a moratorium was put in place it would effectively be undermining the value of that remaining period. Of course conflict is to be expected at this stage with multiple stakeholders involved, but this needs resolution through careful, respectful engagement and not by cutting it off at the knees. We do need to go through these often painful and uncomfortable steps, and I say we should do that and see what happens at the end and not give up now.

Like the honourable member, there is much I do not like about this government and how it operates, but I know the community is having an input to the Marine Park debate, and that input is at a level that is not normally provided by government. Normally, we would love this level of engagement over projects such as the desalination plant or the future of Arkaroola or the allocation of water from the River Murray but, for once, the government has brought the community in early, and I support that. The call to action should be for us to make this consultation as effective as possible and not go to a moratorium at this early stage.

In conclusion, the Greens believe that South Australia was correct in deciding to adopt a marine protected area strategy. We have a model which aims to cater for all stakeholders, and I note that this model was supported by the Liberal Party and—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: It was our idea in the first place.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The honourable member interjects that it was their idea in the first place, and I am happy for that to go on the record. However, the Liberal Party in its pre-election commitments offered a range of promises including, if elected, to put in place sanctuary zones that meet international guidelines. The sanctuary zones proposed by this government will only cover approximately 10 per cent of state waters, and I fear they may well fall short of best scientific practice.

The final thing I would say is to go back to the letter that the 150 scientists sent to our Prime Minister and leader of the opposition and to close with a quote from a document that was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments back in 1996, and that is Australia's National Biodiversity Strategy. The document states:

There is in the community a view that the conservation of biological diversity also has an ethical basis. We share the earth with many other life forms which warrant respect whether or not they are of benefit to us. Earth belongs to the future as well as to the present. No single species or generation can claim it as its own.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J. Gazzola.