Motions

Nuyts Archipelago Marine Park Management Plan

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:54): I move:

That the Nuyts Archipelago Marine Park Management Plan Amendment 2020, declared to be authorised under the Marine Parks Act 2007 on 17 September 2020 and laid on the table of this council on 22 September 2020, be disallowed.

The first four motions on the Notice Paper are about sanctuary zones and I will speak to the first motion but the words that I speak in relation to the first motion are applicable to the other three, so I will not speak individually to all motions. I will speak to the first motion and then just move as printed to the other three.

In speaking to this motion, it is a disallowance motion that seeks to block a politically driven move by the Liberal government to change the management plans of four South Australian marine parks. Sanctuary zones are the key zone for protection and conservation of biodiversity within the marine parks network. These changes by the government are politically motivated. The changes are not backed by the science community and are strongly opposed by experts and environmental groups.

The process has been undertaken over almost 15 years to ensure we have a system in place that properly balances multiple needs. It delivers significant environmental benefits, it is fair for those making a living off the seas, whether through fishing or tourism, and it ensures accessibility for South Australians who want to enjoy what our great state has to offer. More importantly, it is based on science. I highlight this because it is obvious the changes brought about by this process do not appear to have the same principles attached. There seems to be more internal Liberal politics than science behind these changes.

The Minister for Environment and Water was so proud of these changes that he snuck them into the Government Gazette late last month without so much as a tweet, Facebook post or media release to highlight them. Those who know how active the minister usually is on these platforms understand that this is somewhere between unusual and completely unique. This quiet approach is possibly the result of the strong public support for the current network of marine park sanctuary zones.

A recent YouGov poll conducted on behalf of the Wilderness Society of SA found overwhelming public support for the sanctuaries amongst South Australians, with 88 per cent of respondents agreeing that sanctuary zones are a good idea and an incredible 75 per cent wanting to see them doubled in size. Thousands of emails have also been sent to the Labor opposition and, I know, the Premier and the minister, from South Australians who oppose this destruction of our precious environment.

The government's own research shows little benefit to local economies and warns of the environmental dangers of these changes. A 577-page report was commissioned by the Minister for Environment and Water in 2018 and produced by Adelaide consultants BDO Econsearch. The report examined the environmental, social and economic impacts of the marine park sanctuary zones. The document found that the economic benefit of opening up the zones to fishing was minimal and that modifying the zoning arrangements will, and I quote the report:

reduce the effectiveness of the marine park network in protecting and conserving marine biodiversity habitats.

These changes have targeted some of the largest and most important sanctuary zones in the network, which are home to many species from the smallest invertebrates to southern right whales in breeding season. These changes are a terrible outcome for the environment, they are a terrible outcome for recreational fishers, and they are a terrible outcome for South Austrians who love to experience our natural wonders.

This parliament cannot in good conscience allow these changes to proceed. Just because we are seeking to disallow the changes does not mean we do not support the extension of sanctuary zones in some of the management plans. We would welcome the minister returning to parliament with the extensions and increases only. More may need to be done to ensure the increased zones deliver real benefit. A supplementary report of the government's proposed changes to the zones made findings in relation to the increased zone. For the Nuyts Reef expansion, the report stated:

It is suspected that the new sanctuary zone area is mostly sand habitat rather than reef habitat.

And:

As fisheries activity is thought to be minimal in the area, it is expected there will be minimal impact on the site-attached fished species.

For the Isles of St Francis expansion, the report stated:

There are no data currently available on estimated displaced catch/effort for the proposed increased area of the Sanctuary Zone. Thus it is not possible to estimate the economic impact of the proposed increase in Sanctuary Zone area. Nonetheless, the new area is likely to be of relatively low value to rock lobster and abalone fisheries as it is suspected to be largely sand habitat.

We are also not seeking to disallow the changes to the Coorong Beach South sanctuary zone to allow for shore-based fishing or the changes to the Encounter Marine Park. I commend this motion to the chamber and seek the support of members to not allow changes that are based on internal political motives rather than based on science.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.