Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Marine Parks MARINE PARKS The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council MARINE PARKS The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:11): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries a question about marine parks in South Australia. Leave granted. The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The most recent edition of Fishing World magazine quotes former South Australian Fisheries director, David Hill, as saying that the proposed marine parks process is 'a complete and utter sham' that will be unaffordable to manage. I was astounded to read that Mr Hill estimates that South Australian taxpayers will have to pay around $250 million per annum to manage the state's proposed 19 parks, in his estimation. I note that Mr. Hill has other concerns and, in particular, has data from Tasmania showing that large no-take zones contribute to over-fishing and environmental degradation areas outside those zones. Mr Hill has also complained that the best evidence and research from marine scientists is being ignored by the department. I understand that one significant concern held by Mr Hill is that a submission by five senior marine scientists some two years ago which showed that the process used for declaring marine parks was flawed has been effectively ignored, in his view. My questions are: 1.	Is the minister concerned that many senior marine scientists are strongly opposing plans to ban fishing in vast areas of South Australia? 2.	Does the minister accept that the current marine parks proposal will be incredibly expensive to administer, as Mr Hill states? 3.	Does the government accept that the former director's estimate of $250 million per year to administer the proposed 19 parks is accurate and, if not, what is the government's cost estimate? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises) (15:13): I thank the member for his questions and will refer them to the Minister for the Environment in another place and bring back a response. I would like to very briefly say that this government is very committed to the protection of our environment, and particularly our marine environment, and of course that is what the proposal for our marine parks is all about. It is about the long-term sustainability of our marine environment through preserving important parts of our marine ecosystem, and that is a very important part of our strategy for marine protection and, as a government, we do not apologise for that commitment. The marine parks project has, indeed, been a very long one. It has probably been a policy area that has been more consulted on than any other that I can remember. Consultation has been occurring around marine parks, and various aspects of the marine parks, for at least five or 10 years. I am reminded that it was, in fact, the opposition—I think it was Iain Evans—who proposed marine parks in the first instance. So, it is now an outstanding— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council The Hon. G.E. GAGO: —quite an outstanding proposition that the opposition— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable minister. Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The honourable minister. The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council The Hon. G.E. GAGO: So, it is outrageous that the Liberal opposition would be opposing such a sound policy position, given that they initiated the proposal of marine parks in the first instance. Apart from that, I am reminded that it has been, in fact, almost 10 years (time flies!) since this government has been consulting with key stakeholders and the general public around marine parks. So, it is, as I said, one of the most extensively consulted policy areas that I can recollect. There have been a number of different steps, a number of different stakeholder groups, a number of different public meetings. When I was minister for environment, I know that I actually went out and met with crayfishers and oyster fishers. I met extensively with key stakeholders at the time and conducted a number of forums over the two years or so that I was minister; that was only one small part contributing to that consultation process, only one very small part. So, it has been consulted on, as I said, extensively for many, many years. We have continued to listen to key stakeholders and the South Australian public, and we have considered different points of view in our development of marine parks. It is a project that is still underway. It has not been finalised yet. I understand that consultation is still continuing. I think, at this point in time, we are up to consultation around the no-go zones. As I said, we have involved key stakeholders and the general public at every step of the way. We know that this is a very contentious policy area. It is contentious because it involves a wide cross-section of different interest groups who have a very significant financial investment in marine parks or the effects of marine parks. So, we know that those interest groups are very much supporting their own interests. As I said, there is a broad number of different vested interests. The government is working very hard to balance those, to position itself in the fairest way possible to all of those stakeholders and vested interests. Some of those stakeholders involved have a lot of money invested in these industries. They are important industries to our economy as well, and we are very mindful and appreciative of that. So, it is about getting the balance right, and that is difficult. We continue to listen, but the environmental values are also very important to us and are also very valuable, not just in environmental terms, but also in economic costs in the long term. We know that losing the diversification of our species makes us extremely vulnerable. Extinction of species can result in the wiping out of a particular sector overnight, a particular species that might be disease prone, so it is most important. It is not just about environmental values, but those environmental values can be expressed also in terms of economic values and, as I said, it is most important that we continue to work with and consult with the broad stakeholder groups with those complex vested interests. We try to get the balance right as best we can and that is what this government is committed to doing.