SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:02): I move:

That the report of the select committee be noted.

Members may be aware that this committee was appointed back on 18 May 2011 to inquire into and report upon marine parks in South Australia and in particular:

(a) what scientific evidence is available to guide the design and management of marine parks;

(b) the detrimental effects to recreational fishers and the commercial fishing industry through the imposition of marine parks;

(c) the detrimental effects to property values through the imposition of marine parks;

(d) the complaints by local communities and fishing groups regarding the consultation process associated with the implementation of marine parks;

(e) the interstate and international moves to limit the extent of sanctuary zones;

(f) the correct balance of general marine park areas and no-take sanctuary zones; and

(g) how the management of marine parks will be funded.

I would like to initially take the opportunity to thank other members of the committee. Of course at the very start of the committee we had the Hon. Paul Holloway, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Terry Stephens, the Hon. Carmel Zollo, the Hon. John Gazzola who replaced the Hon. Paul Holloway, and then of course the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars who in turn replaced the Hon. John Gazzola.

I wish to express my appreciation to those members for their work. We had quite a number of meetings in this committee and for the most part we conducted ourselves with good humour. I also wish to express my appreciation for the work done by the staff of the committee, specifically our secretary, Ms Guy, and also our research officer, Ms Sladden.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the many witnesses who appeared before the committee. I will go into more detail about that in a moment, but they of course came from all over the state. In many cases, we travelled to their part of the state and it was a pleasure to meet so many interested South Australians who took the time either to prepare a formal written submission or appear before us and give us a verbal account of their views.

I have already spoken about the interim report of the committee that was tabled on 27 November last year, and that interim report was prepared following the changes to the proposed sanctuary zones and other aspects of the marine parks initiative on 27 April 2012 as then announced by the government.

It came as no surprise that the proposal for an extensive network of marine parks in South Australia generated significant community anxiety, particularly in those regions that were to be affected. I believe that this accounted for the large number of submissions received, being 109 in all. The committee heard evidence on 13 different occasions, it travelled to various coastal regions, including Cape Jervis for the Fleurieu Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, Yorke Peninsula, Port Lincoln, and Streaky Bay, and some witnesses from the South-East travelled to Adelaide as well.

Overall, the committee found that conservation and environmental groups were very supportive of the proposed initiatives—perhaps not surprisingly—whilst those involved in marine activities were broadly supportive of the marine parks concept but had significant concerns about the specific proposals that were being released. These concerns centred predominantly on the following issues, although of course they were variable across the groups.

There were significant concerns about what were deemed significant flaws claimed in the consultation process, focusing on the local areas groups in particular. There was some dissatisfaction, as you will see in the report, with the proposed location of the parks and, particularly, the associated zoning arrangements. There were doubts expressed about the underlying scientific research as a justification for the establishment of the parks in the first place, or certainly the location of them. There were fears expressed about the future viability of the fishing industry in some cases and, notably, the commercial sector expressed a number of concerns, which I will go into in a little more detail in a moment.

Finally, there were concerns about flow-on effects on rural economies and, in some cases, property values and the incidence of impacts on the local hotel, for example, the local caravan park, the fish and chip shop, the bait shop, etc. These were all expressed by genuinely concerned South Australians about their livelihoods for a variety of reasons. As I say, these were some of the concerns expressed. There were, of course, many others, but in the interest of brevity I will not go into detail about those.

The final report details the government responses to the nine recommendations of the interim report. These recommendations largely concern the consultation process and the size and locations of particular zones within the sanctuaries. Since the interim report on November 2012, a number of events have occurred that will be well known to people in this place. The management plans for the 19 marine parks have now been finalised.

In hearings, the deputy chief executive of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources gave evidence that the marine park management plans and associated zoning would improve protection for approximately 44 per cent of South Australia's marine environment, with around 6 per cent of state waters now under high level protection in sanctuary and restricted access zones. He considered that the original estimate of a 1.7 per cent economic effect on fishing production was still accurate when we had our most recent meeting with them.

The committee understands that following an eight-week consultation process, and in response to pressure from groups and individuals, some sanctuary zone areas were changed and the total areas overall reduced. These changes included a number of specific things: firstly, additional recreational fishing access at a number of locations, which Family First applauds; adjustments to some sanctuary zones to allow for ongoing commercial fishing, again, which Family First applauds; adjustments to a number of habitat protection zones to support existing oyster aquaculture activity; and additions to some sanctuary zones to further increase conservation outcomes which, in my view, did appear to be justified from the evidence that the committee took.

Despite these changes, some groups still had very serious concerns, and these are detailed at some length in the final report. There was a strong sense from the later hearings that the consultations following the interim report had been very useful and that, whilst some groups had not achieved the changes that they wanted in full, they understood the reasons why the government had given some ground but stood firm on other issues, even if they disagreed with them. I think that shows the value of a committee such as this.

There was mass confusion, I must say, when this committee began, with the process that was underway, but that did seem to improve during the course of the committee because I think the committee applied and required the appropriate responses from the various departments and other individuals concerned. Of course, there were some key players who were not so convinced, though.

The Marine Park 11 Action Group based in the eastern Spencer Gulf, the Kangaroo Island Marine Action Group, and the Marine Park 14 Action Group, focused on Port Wakefield and Yorke Peninsula, provided submissions rejecting the new management and zoning arrangements. Primarily they were concerned that zoning was being used to stand in for proper fishery management and feared for the consequences on their economies, including flow-on effects for other businesses and activities in their town. The committee was very disappointed that these issues could not be resolved in the end and, unfortunately, those groups I have just outlined, remain, I think it is fair to say, at the very least unconvinced and definitely unsupportive of the proposals as they stand.

There remains substantial disagreement as to what the economic impacts of marine parks will be. The formal government estimate that the committee received is that the economic impact will be less than 5 per cent. It claimed that this was achieved by minimising the overlap of high conservation zones with important fishing grounds. The actual estimated impact of the final plans is just 1.7 per cent, as presented to us by the department and, indeed, by official government documents. That is of statewide commercial fishing gross value of production.

The gross value of production is $197 million, so a 1.7 per cent negative impact on that is therefore worth about $3.4 million per annum. The South Australian Marine Parks Alliance presented calculations showing that this figure would be as high as $32.3 million, being almost 10 times as much; this is a massive discrepancy and one that we could not reconcile in the committee. There were many other estimates of the economic impact, including for particular areas, as well, and that is outlined in some detail in the report.

The District Council of Ceduna argued that the plan as proposed will inflict damage of about $40 million per annum on regional South Australia, and it has withdrawn its support for the marine park process until zoning in its area is revisited and substantially altered. The committee noticed that there was a massive discrepancy between the figures quoted from the government and those quoted from the other organisations, including the commercial groups and, indeed, some of the regions affected.

A process has commenced of the government accepting forfeitures of fishing licences and paying compensation as a result of all this in order to reduce the amount of commercial fishing, as the government proposed from the outset. One positive from this is that the consultation process and the select committee process did enable various views, based on particular data, to be put forward and considered by the government and, indeed, the committee. In that sense, even though there were differing views, the participants were able to see the details of other views that were put forward and the basis for them. Whilst they may not have agreed, they at least had the opportunity for their views to be heard and to consider the views of others.

In summary, there is inherent difficulty in reconciling competing interests of the government pursuing conservation as against private individuals who earn a living from fishing or from a business that may be harmed by restrictions on commercial or recreational fishing in one of the towns or likewise. The results of any such process will always be a compromise and, indeed, that was the result of this process. The Conservation Council wanted more sanctuary zones—perhaps not surprisingly—and RecFish SA wanted fewer. Much of the dissatisfaction with the original proposal was alleviated by ongoing consultation although, as I have outlined, disagreements still remain and there are others I have not gone into.

The committee urges government agencies to continue to work with the various marine park action groups to find common ground. The committee also noted that the marine park process has taken place in a context in which regional economies are currently struggling, and this adds extra difficulty to the situation. The evidence indicated that some regional areas will suffer greater economic detriment than others, and I think the Ceduna example I gave outlines that well.

Time will tell whether the correct balance of interests has been struck. From my personal point of view, I think it probably has not. My view is that there will be, in some cases, some very severe detrimental impacts on some of the marine park group areas I have outlined, as well as some of the regional centres. The committee hopes that the marine parks initiative will be a positive step, on the whole, for present and future generations of South Australians. However, it has serious concerns about the negative potential consequences of this initiative, although there are, of course, some positive initiatives as well.

I think it would be remiss of me not to close without mentioning that some $803,000 has been spent on advertising these marine parks to the people of South Australia, and it seems an extraordinary amount of money to be advertising marine parks when the message really has been simply, 'Enjoy life in our marine parks.'

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:13): I rise to make some remarks in relation to the final report of the marine parks select committee. From the outset, I would like to endorse probably all of what the chairman has just outlined to the chamber and thank him for his chairmanship of the committee.

As has been outlined, and as is available on the public record, we had an interim report which has already been tabled, and that was principally to document the community response to both the content and the process of the initial draft sanctuary zones that was undertaken by the environment department. I think the general response was outrage on many levels. That matter has been the subject of motions to this house, as well as to our interim report. Things did change in that the then minister for the environment, the Hon. Paul Caica, and the Premier decided to have a so-called reset of the process, and that led to us needing to examine the revised sanctuary zones and management plans. There is still quite a lot of dissatisfaction with that. My view is that that was a political fix that is not particularly well embedded in scientific research, and there is a smaller number of people who will be negatively impacted, and therefore a smaller voice, but those people who will be impacted will be impacted quite severely. That is clearly something that will need to be further examined.

The revised sanctuary zones have been described as negotiated outcomes by the very articulate Dr Gary Morgan as still lines on a map. The government's claim that some 85 per cent of people support the larger sanctuary zones was actually disputed by one of the submissions that was provided in evidence, which highlighted the fact that a number of them came from outside South Australia and were generated by a website, with which we would all be familiar, because we can tell when there is some sort of internet campaign going on as our inboxes get jammed from people who do not live in our state, so we assess those on their merits.

There is still a great deal of satisfaction with the marine park process. It has been disappointing for me, as someone who obviously has a strong interest in the environment, that this issue has damaged the relationship, at least in the medium term, between the department and regional communities. I think their trust has been lost, and it is much harder to retrieve that trust once it has gone than to have acted at the outset in good faith.

I think this program has been a massive mistake on the part of the government. They really let certain agendas go too far and have had to retrieve it, so I do not have a lot of confidence in some of the zoning, and it will clearly need to be revisited at some point. I thank all the witnesses who have put in a lot of time and effort to make sure their views were heard, along with those of their communities. There have been some real champions on this front, people who have done very detailed submissions and have ensured that the information has been communicated back to their communities, and for those people I think we should be extremely grateful. With those words, I endorse the final report to the house and look forward to further community feedback.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:18): I will try to be brief, but there are a few points I would like to cover regarding the dissenting statement from government members: there is the issue of consultation, the issue of science and the issue of cost. Nearly 30,000 South Australians were involved in the process of consultation, with over 8,000 submissions on the 19 marine parks. A vast majority of these indicated support for marine parks with sanctuary zones. As an example, RecFish SA, which, to be honest, at the start of the process was not particularly supportive, made this comment through Brenton Schahinger, the Chairman of RecFish SA, 'Almost death by consultation, there was just so much of it going on.' A further statement from Peter Owen from the Wilderness Society states:

The government needs to be commended for one of the most comprehensive community consultation programs probably in the state's history.

There was substantial consultation going on in relation to the marine parks and sanctuary zones.

In terms of the science, this is an area where there has been considerable discussion, and it is about whether a threat-based science approach should be taken or an approach around protecting and conserving our marine environment. Quite clearly, contrary to what some people may think, there was significant science applied to determining some of the marine park sanctuary zones.

One in particular at Port Wakefield was very contentious, but it was interesting to hear the comments of RecFish SA in terms of that particular zone, because they valued it for the increased protection of key spawning and nursery areas. Marine parks are not about fisheries management but the Port Wakefield area itself, they said, was unique. It is an inverse estuarine system, that is, it gets saltier the further in you go. That is an ideal location, I understand, for fish breeding and spawning, so it is a very important area in terms of fish stocks in this state.

These consultations were about compromise, too. RecFish SA did not get all that they wanted, nor did organisations such as the Wilderness Society and the Conservation Council of South Australia, but they made the point that key conservation icons were included such as Pearson Island, the Isles of St Francis and sites on the west end of Kangaroo Island—iconic locations and grand tourist locations, particularly on the west of Kangaroo Island. To suggest there was no science applied is absolute nonsense.

Let us come to the issue of costings, and I must say some of the costings were quite extraordinary. The one thing that has to be accepted is that the costings provided by the department were based on science and were actually peer reviewed, and they came to a figure of 1.73 per cent. To have other organisations such as the South Australian Marine Parks Management Alliance suggest that the cost was going to be 10 times the amount but not provide the basis of how they came to that determination is absolutely extraordinary. You have the same thing with the Ceduna council: $40 million—where does that figure come from? How do they support it? Was it peer reviewed? We did not get that view. At least the department could verify, quite substantially, that they had their costings independently peer reviewed.

I have no expectation that the marine parks would be supported by all South Australians. Obviously, there are some who would never have supported the establishment of marine parks or sanctuary zones—they made that very clear in their evidence—but I think the final outcome is one that the government needs to be commended on. The consultation, as I see it, has been substantial, over a substantial period of time, and it has been supported by a significant majority. Eighty-five per cent is an extraordinary support for this issue. I commend the government on its consultation and the final outcome in terms of marine parks and sanctuary zones.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (16:25): I have just a brief comment. I actually did sit through the entire process of the marine parks select committee, unlike some of the latecomers, the previous speaker, who has instantly become an expert on all things, as is perhaps his way.

The government is taking credit for what it calls a wonderful process. I was incredibly disturbed to hear reported to us time and time again how the government's own department would allegedly take minutes of meetings and that these minutes would come back extremely late in the piece and would reflect nothing like what was actually agreed to in these meetings.

The Hon. Gerry Kandelaars talks about the wonderful consultation process. I am disturbed—and I have made this comment in the committee a number of times—that a government department would send people to take minutes and then alter those minutes for their own cause, for their own case. We did not hear it once: we heard it a number of times. I just want to say that, right from the start, I was incredibly disturbed with the process and the way the department handled itself. I have told them that during the committee stage, and it certainly will not be forgotten.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:26): I will just very briefly thank members again, as there is a lot on the Notice Paper tonight. I think we had a good-natured committee by and large. There were some moments where some contentious issues were debated, and it was handled mostly well, I think, by the committee members.

I do have very grave concerns about the impact of some of these parks in certain areas. I think in general, as with most of the evidence the committee took, Family First is supportive of the concept of marine parks, but there are some people who really will suffer as a result of the introduction of these marine parks, and I think that is an issue that has not been addressed, certainly not to their satisfaction, nor to mine.

I think the other issue raised by the Hon. Mr Stephens is very valid, and that is that a number of allegations were made to the committee of minutes being altered after the event. That is very serious indeed. They were made independently. It was not just one group saying that; there were a number of groups saying that independently to the committee, and I think that is very, very serious. We were not able to establish that as a fact, so I need to put that on the record to be fair, but the fact that we heard it consistently across a number of groups, I think, is of great concern.

It was a good experience for me to chair this committee. It is the first committee I have chaired since I have been in this parliament and I must say that I found it enjoyable. I trust that the report is of interest to members and to the community.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Mr Acting President, I draw your attention to the state of the council.

A quorum having been formed: