MATTERS OF INTEREST

MARINE PARKS

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (15:20): The government has acknowledged that an extension of the consultation period over the proposed marine parks is necessary to provide clarity in what has been—and is—a clouded debate. I also think that we need to acknowledge that the issue of marine parks has been a fertile ground for the dissemination of fear and disinformation.

Such a fertile ground has been cultivated at some public meetings. This was evidenced in the call for the abolition of no-take zones by the opposition as firm policy, as announced at the Burnside Town Hall meeting. Since then, there appears to be a lack of clear understanding of what the opposition's position is on no-take zones. It needs to be contrasted with what the Liberals have said in the past.

The then Liberal premier, the Hon. Rob Kerin, announced in the other place some years ago in answer to a question from the opposition on the development of protected marine biodiversity parks as follows:

In September 1998 the government released the document 'Our Seas and Coasts. A Marine and Estuarine Strategy for South Australia'. Among the many important initiatives in this document, the government undertook to: 'Using interim guidelines for establishing the national system of MPAs...identify and recommend areas of South Australian waters to be part of a system of MPAs. The strategy intends that the system be in place by the year 2003.

It was the former Liberal government that established marine parks and it was the Liberal government that enacted the protection of cuttlefish breeding grounds when the Hon. Rob Kerin informed parliament on 10 February 1999 of the closure of Upper Spencer Gulf for approximately seven months in each of the years 1999 and 2000, with the possible further closure of the area until a longer term strategy could be found—all under the scientific guidance of SARDI. This action, as he put it, was proof of the then 'government's commitment to ecological and economic sustainability of South Australia's valuable marine resources'.

It is clear that the then government was committed to closure, if necessary, and committed to the science and the principle of a precautionary conservative approach. Given their previous acceptance of the research and the need for stewardship, can the opposition spokesman on the environment give an undertaking that they, in principle, will not rule out sanctuary zones and also recognise the need to act on scientific consensus as primary in the establishment and the role of sanctuary zones?

Just for the record, I understand the anxiety expressed by fishers and vested interests, but I also understand that we have to be cautious if we are to maintain marine environments and sustainable habitats. The report in 'A National Approach to Addressing Marine Biodiversity Decline—Report to the NRM Ministerial Council' sets out clearly the nexus between marine biodiversity, habitats and its consequences for sustainable marine resources, an especially important issue given the decline in the health of our marine environments.

We need to acknowledge the importance of no-take zones to the well-being of future fishing stocks and the spillover effect for recreational and industry fishers as noted in the AFANT (Amateur Fisherman's Association of the Northern Territory) publication commenting on the report in the prestigious scientific journal, Science. We also need to acknowledge the comments by UniSA Don Clifton, Program Director of UniSA's graduate program, re social and ecological collapse as the world approaches a conservatively estimated population of around 9.5 billion by 2050, where he concluded in regard to our ever destructive resource-consuming lifestyle as follows:

And what's wrong is living our lives in a way where we don't live with the consequences of our own behaviour...like it or not, the lifestyles we enjoy come at a cost. We need to face that and do something about it.

To conclude, the recent report by the Centre for Policy Development on marine economy security has also reinforced the need for Australia to institute extra marine parks and increase fish stocks to combat the negative economic impact of climate change. It has released a concerning set of figures on the cost of inaction, namely the risk to 9,000 direct jobs in commercial fishing and our marine tourism industry worth $11 billion a year, as well as reeling off a set of figures in the billions of dollars of economic marine assets—an assets base which is at risk if long-term protection is sacrificed for short-term interests.