Parliamentary Committees

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood:

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Marine Parks in South Australia that its terms of reference be extended by inserting new paragraph 1A as follows:

1A. That the select committee inquire into and report upon—

(a) the government's proposed recent amendments to the draft management plans and impact statements for each of the proposed 19 marine parks in South Australia; and

(b) any other related matter.

(Continued from 28 November 2012.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:26): I will be brief in my remarks this evening as I pre-empted them on 28 November when I moved that the interim report of the Select Committee on Marine Parks in South Australia be noted. Members may recall that I moved to extend the select committee's terms of reference and sought leave to conclude my remarks this evening, and that is what I am doing now. I indicated that I would be making a more substantial contribution when sittings resumed this month and I obtained leave to conclude my remarks, as I have indicated. There are some further matters that I wish to put this evening.

The Select Committee on Marine Parks in South Australia is a vital committee that has considered some very controversial proposed changes. There has been a very significant public reaction to the government's proposals, particularly in areas such as Port Wakefield, which will be greatly and detrimentally affected. Members of the public who consider that they would be adversely affected by the marine park proposals have made a valuable contribution to date, as have those who have thought that the proposal would benefit them. I quote from a comment made during the debate of the Hon. Mr Kandelaars, who said:

The committee's report is somewhat dated, failing to fully consider the government-released draft sanctuary zones in April or the full suite of zoning released by the government in July, nor has the committee's report considered the marine parks management plans, which include independently prepared impact statements, which were released in late August.

I agree with the Hon. Mr Kandelaars: that is precisely right. The report that we did issue was somewhat dated, for the reasons he had outlined, and that is unfortunate. This situation arose because much of the evidence was prepared and presented to the committee before the changes were announced. There was indeed a very large amount of detailed evidence that was taken, including evidence taken in the regional areas of South Australia, and it would have been unfair to the people who put considerable time and effort into preparing their submissions for those submissions not to be presented to the parliament and, indeed, to the public.

The changes to the planned marine parks are very substantial and will, no doubt, affect the evidence and submissions that members of the public would wish to make. It is clear to me that further evidence should now be taken on the new proposals, as I have moved, so that the final report of the committee can review the details of the proposed marine parks as they currently exist or are currently proposed. If this is not done the public will consider that they have not been adequately consulted on this most important issue. The concerns are legitimate concerns and Family First agrees with them.

Commercial fishers are concerned that their livelihood will be taken away in some cases or substantially impacted. They are also concerned that they will not be properly compensated for the loss to their business and that their plant and equipment will no longer be of any use to them or others. Recreational fishers, in many cases, are concerned that certain fishing areas will be off limits. Local businesses, generally, have expressed concern at the effect this may have on tourism and, therefore, the viability of their businesses in their region.

These issues are worthy of the parliament's time and consideration. I am confident that the government would not wish these things to be seen and they would not wish them to be disregarded. I understand that the opposition has indicated support which I am grateful for. Therefore, I ask that this house support this motion. I will be seeking a vote on this motion on the next Wednesday of sitting (not this evening), seeking an extension of the terms of reference of the committee so that it can properly take account of the current proposals for marine parks in this state.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:31): I will be speaking on the motion in relation to the interim select committee report at a later stage, but I wanted to make some remarks in relation to this motion which is to extend the terms of reference of the committee.

The original sanctuary zones caused outrage across the state in every region which contains coastal waters. A public meeting was organised by the member for Bragg at which we had so many people that they were literally climbing in through the windows and in many layers outside trying to get in, so there was obviously a lot of anger from a lot of people at that stage.

The new Premier, on being installed by his factions, had sniffed the political breeze and this was well into the term of the committee when it had taken much evidence on the original sanctuary zones, so this is sensible now that those original sanctuary zones have been pulled and replaced by an alternative. This means that there are fewer regions which are affected but there is still an impact on those particular areas being Port Wakefield, and anybody who drives through the area will see that signs have been erected warning what is going to happen to the local fishing industry. The West Coast and Kangaroo Island will also be quite severely affected.

It makes sense that the committee should continue to exist and that it should report on the evidence that it has taken but that we should also examine these new areas because we are interested in fairness for all South Australians to ensure that the zones that have been proposed by the government will actually do what they are supposed to do which is protect the marine environment and not cause more than 5 per cent economic impact. With those remarks, I indicate that we will be supporting this motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.