HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARINE PARKS BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 October 2007. Page 1261.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:56): I confirm that I am the lead speaker for the opposition in regard to the Marine Parks Bill, and the opposition is prepared to support the bill in its current form. This bill has a long history and, while being introduced in the Legislative Council in June of this year, it had its genesis from 1995 when the then Liberal government initiated discussions to form marine parks. The intention of these discussions was to introduce legislation designed to meet international and national marine conservation standards that would provide certainty for all stakeholders who want to use our magnificent marine environment.

In 2001 the then minister for the environment (Hon. Iain Evans) and the minister for primary industries (Hon. Rob Kerin), with key stakeholders (including the Conservation Council and the Seafood Council), announced that agreement had been reached on a broad framework for the development of a bill. When Labor won government in 2002, the legislation took a back seat until the announcement in March 2005 when the government announced its intention to create the Encounter Marine Park, which covers much of the southern coast south of Adelaide and the Kangaroo Island marine area.

I am confident that the member for Finniss will have quite a bit to say about this bill, especially about the way the introduction of a marine park was to occur. A word that others have used to me to describe the process for the creation of the Encounter Marine Park is 'debacle'. No doubt the member for Finniss will expand upon whether that was the word used and what it means.

From my briefings and conversations about this bill, it is clear that the reaction to this proposal was, from the government's perspective, not very good, so the proposal was stopped and the minister and the department for the environment and conservation has been 'consulting' the community since. The member for Finniss will describe quite clearly whether or not this attempt to consult has been successful. I think he has a different opinion. Also, no doubt, the member for Flinders, who represents that wonderful area of Eyre Peninsula (which it is intended will have 11 of the 19 marine parks) will speak on the bill. From my own point of view I am grateful to have responsibility in the House of Assembly for this bill because I am the lucky person who represents the Yorke Peninsula and Adelaide Plains in this house and, as Yorke Peninsula (as we all know) is a wonderful sea environment, I thought it opportune.

My electorate has probably close to 700 kilometres of coastline (and, depending how you measure it, it could be closer to 900 kilometres), but I will use that as a conservative estimate. Clearly, and without a hint of bias, Yorke Peninsula also is recognised as one of the best fishing opportunities in South Australia. There will be others in this place who will make statements about that, but I will claim fame for the best fishing.

Professional and net line fishers (and I know of some operations that are fourth generation) have existed and prospered in the waters off Yorke Peninsula for many years. These fishers have supplied the local and Adelaide markets with a wonderful abundance of fish, always of good quality, for all those years. Importantly, the absolute majority of these professional fishers have always respected the need to preserve the marine environment. Without this, their long-term livelihood would be threatened. So, they are some of the best conservers of that area that I know of.

Recreational fishers (and my understanding is that South Australia has about 300,000 recreational fishers, or approximately 20 per cent of the population), and 40,000 people who own recreational fishing boats know that Yorke Peninsula is a great place to come for a holiday and try your luck, be it from one of the many recreational or commercial jetties, off the beach or from a boat.

A significant player in the economy of my electorate and a lot of others with coastal waters is the money generated from the operations of professional fishers, as well as the money that comes into an area associated with recreational fishers, many of whom pursue, as I did when I had a bit more spare time, the dream of bagging out and getting their full quota of (in my case) King George whiting. I know that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure is a keen fishermen and has been to Yorke Peninsula, fishing in the waters off Port Vincent, I believe, so he would want to ensure that this law still encourages recreational fishers.

To encourage recreational fishers to the area, not just in my electorate but in many others as well, councils are spending large amounts of ratepayer funds to provide the best possible boat ramp facilities. The support of the SA Boating Facility Advisory Committee, which allocates funds from the levy paid by all recreational fishers (which I think is about $28 per boat per year), involving a maximum of 50 per cent contribution to supported capital works, has been a major factor in those works being undertaken.

The growth in caravan parks across all electorates with coastal waters is due to a large extent to the recreational fisher, so it is easy to see why any legislation that potentially impacts upon professional and recreational fishers should be a concern not only to me but to all members in this place. Many people who have moved to Yorke Peninsula have done so on the basis of making a lifestyle choice. For a large number of this group, the opportunity to fish in magnificent waters would have been part of that attraction.

Minister Gago's second reading explanation, delivered in the Legislative Council in June 2007, mentioned that the intention of the bill is as follows:

...to provide effective management to protection of marine environments and the plants and animals that depend on them from increasing human pressures, whilst ensuring opportunities for ecologically sustainable development, use and enjoyment occur.

It is human nature that people are concerned by change, and that occurs in virtually every aspect of life in general. Clearly, the way the government has gone about the process of introducing the 19 marine parks now in existence has created enormous anxiety across much of South Australia, as people have suddenly become concerned as to whether their ability to go out on the waters and catch fish will be compromised by government legislation. People can understand if the weather is against them or if fish are not in the area, but they cannot understand if government legislation will make it impossible to go out fishing or to fish in certain areas.

To a large degree I now know that this concern should not exist, but for the ordinary person, who hears part of the story from a neighbour or, say, from a person who is at the boat ramp, that they will no longer be able to go out and throw a line over the side of a boat in an area where they have fished, often for many years, it is a very real concern. I attended a meeting held at Kadina about two months ago, convened by the Department for Environment and Heritage, to work out the community consultation plan for the region as it related to the marine parks legislation.

I was not invited to the meeting, as I felt I should have been as the local member, but became aware of it through other contacts and invited myself. There were about 20 people in attendance at that meeting and the group was made up of local government, regional development boards, professional fishers, tourism marketing officers and natural resource management people, who broke up into groups and were asked to come up with the names of all parties who should be consulted and advised about the legislation and the marine parks.

I am advised that similar meetings were held in the other regions of the state, so I am confident that as an outcome of those meetings information will be provided to all necessary bodies who will then be asked to convey it to their members and contacts. So people will have the information, but the question I pose today is whether they will read it and consider the implications for them from the legislation, or whether they will continue to rely on the large amount of misinformation that exists in the community.

The challenge for the government is to make South Australians understand—and I stress 'understand'—the marine parks, the zones within each marine park and what they will do in each zone. That will be the crucial exercise for the government. It has to ensure that it gets that information out to the community in a way that the community can understand, appreciate and react to. If it fails to do this, it will lead to a large amount of community unrest. As a member who represents an area with 700 kilometres of coastline, I know that the expectation of those people who approach me about this matter is that I will be involved in leading the charge. The government needs to ensure that consultation is immense here. It is fair enough to have the plan in place, but we have to make sure that people can understand it in a way to which they can relate.

One thing that is very clear to me is that the bill in its current form is a far superior piece of legislation than that introduced into the Legislative Council by minister Gago in June. The Hansard record of the debate in the Legislative Council reflects the various contributions made by the opposition, the Democrats, Family First and the Greens. Clearly, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer has performed her task as the opposition member responsible for the bill in the other place with great knowledge, skill and effort. I have spoken to her several times about this bill, and it is clear to me that she is across this matter exceptionally well.

It is interesting to note that in her contribution in the Legislative Council she referred to the expressions of concern that the opposition had received. For the purpose of the Hansard record I will repeat them. Expressions of concern were received from the Eyre Peninsula Local Government Association, Grant District Council, the Wilderness Society, the Conservation Council, the Seafood Council of South Australia, the South Australian Fishing Industry Council, the Aquaculture Council, the South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council, the South Australian Survey Charter Boats Association, the South Australian Rock Lobster Advisory Council, the Abalone Industry Association of South Australian Incorporated, the South Australian Marine Scale Sardine Industry Association, the Spencer Gulf and West Coast Prawn Fishermen's Association, the South Australian Blue Crab Pot Fishers Association, the Seafood Processors and Exporters Council Inc., the Marine Fishers Association and the South Australian Oyster Growers Association.

I did not know that all these groups even physically existed, but it is obvious that those people—all of whom have an interest in the sea—want to ensure that their opinions are heard. The Hon. Caroline Schaefer ensured that she received their comments and she prepared a detailed submission to deliver to the joint party room meeting of the opposition; and they have been considered as part of the amendments she proposed in the other place.

It is interesting to note that these groups were generally supportive of the introduction of marine protected areas, but they wanted to ensure that transparency existed, that certainty was provided and that the input of the users of the marine environment was considered at all times. Sadly, from our perspective we believe that none of these concerns was considered or covered by the original bill. Pleasingly, however, the amendments introduced and supported in the Legislative Council in the main ensure that this protection exists.

My discussions with the Hon. Caroline Schaefer have highlighted the following points. Compensation now exists for displaced commercial fishers. Importantly, this also extends to charter boat operators. My immediate question was whether this compensation money was coming from the industry via a levy or from Treasury. I was pleased to be advised that Treasury is responsible for that compensation. An advisory council has been established, with representation from key stakeholder groups. While appointed by the minister, the minister is required to take note of their recommendations, the boundaries of each marine park and the zone within those marine parks—which must be proposed by the advisory council.

A local consultation group will be established for each of the 19 marine parks; and that is the key thing. It is important that local people are involved in the decisions that are made and that local people—who can become champions for it—have the opportunity to know exactly what is proposed, so they can ensure they talk to people within their networks of friends and associations they represent.

Six weeks minimum consultation is to occur after the proposed boundaries and economic impact study are published. This replaces a previous 28-day period; so that is a good step forward, also. The importance of ecologically sustainable development is now highlighted in the bill. As I understand it, each of the 19 management plans (which will be developed) is required to be referred to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of the parliament, with a possibility of further referral to both houses of parliament if the ERD committee does not agree. Clearly, this proves that the democratic process is alive and well, and that sound, well-intended amendments will be supported in the other place. Let us hope that the government recognises this in the House of Assembly also. Similar, legislation has been introduced into other states, with South Australia being one of the last states to introduce it.

Given the fact that the exercise in Queensland has resulted in several hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation being paid for lost professional effort, no doubt the government will have learnt from that experience and will ensure that any no-go zones established in the 19 marine parks will have as minimal effect as possible, given that compensation payments must come from Treasury. Consultation and information will be the key in this process—and I know it is a word I have used quite often and, no doubt, other members will refer to this in their contributions. People must be told what is being planned and provided with the opportunity to have input in those decisions.

The fact is that the boundaries of the proposed 19 marine parks have not yet been determined. However, we on this side have certainly noted that the Adelaide metropolitan beaches will not have one. The fact that the zones within the boundaries have not yet been determined really does put enormous pressure on the consultation process to get it right and to ensure that the best possible decisions are made on all matters.

I know from informal discussions with members of the opposition that there is a lot of concern that the regulations have not been prepared and that we have no idea of the zones. A degree of trust exists, but there is also a degree of mistrust because, in the past, people have put their faith in others and it has not necessarily been delivered. We hope that the faith that is being shown by agreeing to the bill (as it currently stands) without the knowledge of what the regulations will say and where the zones will be will still allow that degree of trust to exist in the future.

There has also been significant talkback radio commentary on this bill. I have made sure that, when I have not had the chance to listen to the radio, I have reviewed the media précis comments on it. I think, upon reflection, that a degree of informed comment is made when professional people from associations are talking, but the confusion begins when people ring up—quite often late at night—to talk about issues about which they know only some of the story. It makes it even more important for the government to ensure that, when the consultation occurs, it is detailed and very widespread. With those few comments, I confirm that the opposition is supportive of the bill.

Ms BREUER (Giles) (12:12): I rise today to support the second reading of this bill not only as the member for Giles but also in my capacity as Presiding Member of the ERD Committee. The ERD Committee reviewed—

The Hon. R.B. Such: A very good committee.

Ms BREUER: A very good committee, as the member for Fisher says. The ERD Committee reviewed the process and issues surrounding the establishment of a system of marine protected areas (also known as marine parks) between June 2004 and December 2005. During this time, the committee received evidence from a range of stakeholders—some wanting the process to move quicker, others wanting more certainty about how the process will run and again others challenging the concept, of course. However, one issue that appeared to be common was the need for certainty about the process, and I believe that this bill before the parliament amply provides this.

If I look at the recommendations from our inquiry, I am pleased to report that the majority of the recommendations are either incorporated into the legislation or, I am advised by the Minister for Environment and Conservation, are built into the thinking and processes that support the legislation. In the interest of brevity, I will not address all 25 of the formal recommendations of the committee, but I would like to take the opportunity to highlight some of the key outcomes sought by the ERD Committee that certainly have been clearly addressed in this legislation.

The first recommendation is that the committee recommends that the government provide adequate resources to establish and implement the MPAs. As members would be aware, the committee increased the funding to this initiative by an additional $4 million over four years in the last state budget. This clearly demonstrates the government's commitment to marine conservation. The second recommendation was that the committee recommends that the government implement legislation for the establishment and management of MPAs as soon as possible.

It is pleasing that, in the less than two years from the inquiry, we have legislation drafted, we have had three months of formal consultation and community engagement and amendments from the community feedback. The bill has been passed by the upper house, including amendments by the Greens, Democrats, Family First, the opposition and supported by the government, and now we have this before us today.

The committee also recommends that the government implement MPAs expeditiously and, where possible, concurrently. Now that we have certainty about the process (which has recently been supported by all key stakeholders), the government can move forward with confidence. I understand the government has committed to proclaim and develop management plans for 19 marine parks concurrently. This will avoid a piecemeal approach and give certainty to all those parties with an interest in the marine environment. There are certainly a lot of them out there, and I believe many of us have heard from them.

The committee's recommendation 4 is that the government identify how, and to what extent, it will manage and compensate displaced livelihoods from MPAs. This has certainly generated a lot of conflict and concern out there in the community; however, the bill before the house provides a head of power for managing this important and sensitive issue for the commercial fishing and aquaculture sectors, and I have been able to reassure people who have spoken to me regarding this issue.

Recommendation 10 of our report is that the government ensures there is adequate recognition and consistency between the local NRM plan and the MPA management plan, and we see this as being particularly important. This is provided for in clause 13 'General nature and content of management plans'.

Recommendation 11 is that the ecosystem-based management principles be included in the legislation. I am pleased to see that the objects and definitions in the bill pick up more than just species and habitats. They include ecological processes, functioning of ecosystems and, importantly, resilience to adapt to the emerging pressures of climate change (a real issue that has emerged since that report).

Recommendation 13 of the report is that the government provide the all-over authority to the Minister for Environment and Conservation and that one of the minister's departments takes the lead in the implementation of the new marine legislation. I would like to commend the former minister for environment and conservation, the Hon. John Hill MP, and certainly the current minister, the Hon. Gail Gago MLC (who, incidentally, also served with me on the ERD Committee during this inquiry), and would like to thank them for providing leadership. I would also like to commend the officers of DEH for their efforts in developing this legislation and consulting with stakeholders and regional communities. It would not have been an easy or thankful role, but it has been done thoroughly and, I believe, very professionally.

Recommendation 16 is that the government provides for a consistent approach to fishing irrespective of whether it is commercial or recreational fishing. This is a real issue out there in our communities. While this is primarily a role for the Fisheries Management Act 2007, I am pleased to see that the marine parks are considering restrictions based on impacts and not making winners and losers out of different groups in our community undertaking similar activities.

Recommendations 18 and 19 are that the government works with the relevant sectors to determine a compensation package for displaced operators and that compensation criteria be included in regulations. I was very pleased to be advised by the Minister for Environment and Conservation that this is supported and is provided for in the bill, and, importantly, that the first meeting of the Displaced Effort Working Group, comprising a range of representatives from the commercial fishing and aquaculture industries, is meeting for the first time today to start this important work. As can be seen, the government is taking this matter very seriously and is getting on with the job.

Recommendation 22 is that the government undertakes extensive consultation with the local community and interest groups regarding establishment and implementation of MPAs—and, as I mentioned earlier, I am thankful for the consultation that has occurred in my electorate to date. More importantly, the bill currently before the house provides detailed processes for local community engagement throughout the development of marine parks—consultation on foundries, opportunities to provide information at various stages, mandatory consultation on management plans, provision of a marine parks council—thanks to well developed amendments by the Hon. Caroline Schaefer MLC and a range of stakeholders. In addition, the government has committed to establish non-statutory regional consultative committees for each marine park to further engage local communities, and I believe that is particularly important because local communities want to feel that they are being listened to and are being heard.

Recommendation 24 is that the government consults with local indigenous groups from an early stage. Again, I was very pleased to see that the legislation specifically addresses indigenous issues and has been framed to ensure that it complements and engages the Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) and native title processes.

I look forward to the passage of this bill today, and to the ongoing work with communities across South Australia, as we deliver target 3.4 of South Australia's Strategic Plan. I commend the bill and I commend the minister on her work.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:19): I do not know whether I am pleased to speak on this bill, but I am glad that I have the opportunity to speak on it. If we go back some years, it was actually the Liberal Party that first came up with the proposal to float marine parks legislation in South Australia.

I do not have a great problem with the concept of marine protected areas and marine parks—in fact, I am quite supportive of the idea—but, in this particular case, because my area was the prototype and the first marine protected area that was going to be put in place before the wheels fell off, I would like to have the opportunity to make a few points. Hopefully, we will see a considerable amount of common sense coming back into the way in which this process finally ends up.

The original Encounter MPA idea was flawed from the outset. The committee was heavily weighted in favour of those who sought to stop people from doing everything. I believe that the information they were given was not correct and, in fact, that the leadership at departmental level left a lot to be desired. So, it was a weighted committee. Instead of taking the community on the South Coast and eastern Kangaroo Island with them, they actually got everyone up in arms, and it was an absolute and a categorical disaster. At the time, I could not believe that it could have gone so badly wrong. Indeed, what happened was that everything was put on the backburner, and we are here today.

I do not want to go back to the way it was. I understand that 19 parks are to be proclaimed. However, I have a great problem with the fact that the entire metropolitan area, as I understand it, has been left out. We have 1.2 or 1.3 million people in the metropolitan area who will not have a marine park within their boundary. Members may well ask why that is happening. Well, I will tell you why it is happening: the government does not want to risk upsetting people who may or may not vote for it in the March 2010 election.

So, the information I have is that we are not going to have any metropolitan park. That is just an act of plain errant stupidity when you think that the majority of the pollution is generated in and around the metropolitan area—that is where all the people live, and that is where everything, including the stormwater, runs out to sea. I think that not proclaiming a park there is, quite frankly, absolute lunacy. What also really concerns me in relation to this matter is that the government seems to have introduced a fisheries management bill, not a marine protected areas bill. The question I would like answered is: is this indeed a fisheries management bill?

In South Australia, we have among the world's best managed fisheries. It is a credit to those who were around in the past that the fisheries are so well managed and that our species are well run. I have no problem whatsoever with the quotas that have been introduced into the fisheries, whether it be shark, prawns, cockles, lobster, or whatever else. However, I think that this issue will get everyone totally offside, and I do not think that is smart. I know there is a lot of angst among fishermen, who are greatly concerned about the enforcement of this measure and about what will happen.

How will this bill be enforced? The problem is that we can put the legislation in place but, ultimately, it will be the regulations that will kill the thing. I simply do not have confidence that the regulations, when they are introduced, will be in the best interests of the people of South Australia. I can see it being a dictatorial, bureaucratic exercise in putting everyone in their place, and I think that will come back to haunt the government, quite frankly. Indeed, the Kangaroo Island council and the three councils in the mainland part of my electorate (Alexandrina, Yankalilla and Victor Harbor) are concerned to the extent that last week the Victor Harbor council moved some motions that were absolutely critical of where we are going with this bill, led by the Mayor, Mary-Lou Corcoran, who is a good Labor Party supporter. So I have to ask the question: what is going on? As far as consultation, the Victor Harbor council asked to have somebody put on the consultative committee, but it was refused. The council actually put forward Mr David Hall's name (a former director of fisheries)—to whom I will return later—but that was pooh-poohed.

I do not believe that the current consultative committee is quite right yet. I think Mr Hall should be put on the committee. To some extent it is not balanced, in my view; it still weighs heavily on the side of conservation, with an over-green approach, and I do not think that is helpful. I do not think it will show enough leadership and I do not think there will be balance.

We then come to the question of compensation. The architect of much of what is happening in South Australia came to us from Queensland. Currently in Queensland, $400 million in compensation has been paid out to people displaced. So, where will we go? It ought to be a lesson to the government that we should not run around and start kicking fishermen out. The recreational fishing organisation called for compensation. I can tell members here and now that I do not support that. My understanding is that there are 300,000 people—and I stand to be corrected—who go fishing in South Australian waters.

One of the problems is that, amongst those recreational fishermen, we have many fishermen who come over from Victoria or the Eastern States. Victoria has shut up shop, so to speak, so they all come over here and fish our waters. They come into my electorate in droves and they take fish. They do not always limit themselves to the numbers that they should, and that is also of major concern to me. I do not think that the compensation issue has been addressed properly. I am most grateful that the Hon. Caroline Schaefer in another place, with the support of the Independents and other members of the Liberal Party, was able to amend many of the clauses in the bill to get it into the form in which it has come to the lower house.

When this legislation goes through, it will impact heavily on the people of South Australia forever and a day. The regulations are what will make or break it, and I am concerned that they might break it. I say to the government and to the minister in another place: you need to get this right, because it will come back and bite you. You need to think it through. You need to think through the outcomes and you need to think about whether ordinary, decent South Australians need to be subject to some sort of dictatorial bureaucracy running around in brown shirts who are going to belt the daylights out of everybody if they move over a line.

One of the problems on the water—and I have been involved with the sea all my life in one way or another—is that it does not have fences. It is not like farming land or blocks, or whatever, which can have a distinct boundary. It is a little bit difficult to put fences out there, so to speak. So, the ordinary man in the street—or the ordinary man out in the water, in this case—does not have the liberty of knowing exactly where the boundaries are. Not everybody can afford a GPS and not everybody will be aware of everything that goes with it. I will return later to some of the concerns that are coming through from my community.

I do not know whether ecologically sustainable development will be suitably enhanced by this bill. Along the shorelines I think those things are important. There is no question that people are flocking to the coast during this current sea change, and eventually, I suppose, we will have a tree change and we will all go inland. Indeed, the South Coast of the Fleurieu Peninsula is growing so rapidly that it is causing great angst and it is putting pressure on local government authorities, without a lot of help from the government.

A few things concerning recreational fishing and the fishing industry generally need some tidying up. We have differing groups who have no respect whatsoever for the law. They tend to go and take all. I have no problem at all with these people being pulled into gear. I also have no problem with those that go out in the morning and catch their quota of whiting, go out after lunch and catch their quota of whiting and go out again that evening: that happens. I think these people are plain foolish. Go out and get your 12 whiting, that is fine: that is 24 fillets and that is enough to feed anybody, quite frankly.

I am not trying to confuse the issue, but I will turn to a paper that was put out by Mr David Hall, who is the managing director of Hallprint in Victor Harbor and also a former director of fisheries in South Australia. His paper is entitled, 'The Encounter Marine Park proposal—why anglers are upset'. I would expand on that and say that not only are anglers upset: there are a few others, including tourism operators, potential developers and many others. I quote from Mr Hall's paper, as follows:

Why then, you might ask, are so many anglers and a few commercial fishers on the South Coast of the Fleurieu Peninsula in particular so concerned about the proposed Encounter Marine Park and why, in my opinion, is the South Australian fishing public being subjected to one of the biggest confidence tricks of our times?

There is no doubt whatsoever that well designed marine parks or, more correctly, aquatic reserves potentially have an important role to play in the management of our living and non-living aquatic resources. There are indeed many real threats to the sustainability of our marine resources in our region, including pollution from stormwater, human sewage, agriculture and industrial effluent, introduced species and diseases, overfishing, aquaculture, coastal and riverine developments including marinas, and potentially destructive and unsustainable activities including certain forms of bottom trawling, gill netting and mining, to name but a few. Given the extreme sensitivity of marine ecosystems to the slightest changes in average water temperature, you can add climate change to the list.

A sensibly designed marine park or aquatic reserve system should actively assess these threats in regions recognised as having a rich biodiversity and come up with practical measures that contribute towards minimising the potential impact of these threats.

The Encounter Marine Park proposal as it stands and the process that has been followed to date achieves next to none of this. The documentation that has been released to date in support of the draft proposal includes mostly generic statements about the importance of biodiversity conservation and contains almost none of what I consider are the key prerequisites required to support a proposition for a marine park in the area:

1. A detailed spatial account of the habitat types across the region...habitats that are considered to be representative of the bioregion and critical to biodiversity conservation.

2. A detailed spatial and temporal account of the oceanography of the region.

3. A detailed spatial and temporal account of the distribution and abundance of animal and plant species of the region, especially threatened or vulnerable species, and associations with key habitat types and oceanographic events.

4. A detailed account of what the principal threats are to biodiversity conservation within the marine park (e.g. stormwater and effluent) and development of alternative measures to address these threats.

5. A detailed analysis of the impacts of proposed sanctuary zones and alternate sanctuary zones on recreational and commercial fish stocks; e.g. rock lobster, snapper and King George whiting.

Mr Hall goes on with a number of other points, then says:

What we have seen in the Encounter region since the formation of the consultative committee in 2002 has been the release in 2005 of a...zoning plan for the marine park, together with a 'Basis for Zoning' document. The 2005 draft zoning plan had zero...input from the community, other than through a consultative committee that appeared to meet in secret and not publish minutes. It had none of the above prerequisite documentation, other than a several hundred page so-called technical report...

In fairness, the new advisory committee that is put in place is open most of the time—it is not open to the public all of the time—and it does take minutes. So, that is a step in the right direction. My concern is that when we ultimately do get these advisory committees you are going to see ideologically-based committees that are weighted heavily in favour of over-exuberant greenies that have no real touch with the world and just want to push their own particular cause, and that is not what it is all about. I would like to think that my children, who are grown up now, or my potential grandchildren, would have the opportunity to do what I have done all my life, which is to go out to sea to go fishing and diving and respect the water for what it is and look after the sea because it is the basis of so much of what we take for granted.

I am appalled when I go into fish shops and see the amount of fish that comes in from Asia. I have no great desire to eat fish from Vietnam or Thailand or anywhere else when we can produce the quantity of fish that we need and, indeed, fish of a greater quality when you compare it to what comes down the Mekong River and grows the fish out. That is of great concern to me.

We have a fantastic fishing industry. We have a wonderful land-based aquaculture industry. We have abalone farms in my area and on the West Coast, and the member for Flinders may mention them. We have fantastic lobster, a great range of scale fish, oysters and everything. The fishermen are not so stupid as to wipe out the industry that provides their way of life and income. I have great fears about where this will go if it gets hijacked by some idiot in the bureaucratic system who wants to put in regulations on an ideological basis. I do not know where these advisory committees will come into it. I suspect that they are just another Labor plot to put in place people who think they will have input when really they will have none at all.

A document addressed to The Australian Society for Fish Biology in Canberra in September this year was written by Bob Kearney, Emeritus Professor of Fisheries at the University of Canberra, in which he quotes the pros and cons of marine protected areas as follows:

There is not such good consensus on exactly what benefits users of MPAs can actually anticipate. Benefits, have unfortunately, been more often assumed and proven, particularly for mobile species and complex ecosystems.

Once again, I get back to the matter of fences. You do not have fences in the sea, so the fish do not stay there—they move around. I think attempts to wipe out net fishing in some areas, as proposed on Kangaroo Island, are just stupid no-brainers. These people live in the community. Why would you wipe out people who live and work in the community and act carefully and who know what they are doing, who fish the areas at different times of the year, who provide cheap fish—and that should appeal to members opposite—that a lot of people in lower socio-economic levels can afford. If you want to wipe that out, it will be on your backs I am afraid. Professor Kearney goes on to say:

The actual title of this Science Paper is, 'A review of benefits of Marine Protected Areas and related zoning considerations' (Marine Parks Authority New South Wales undated). Here the issue of balance, or lack thereof, begins to emerge; one may well question the objectivity in having 'the Science Paper' on MPAs consider only the benefits.

Here we go. Here are the wise men from the East who have come to South Australia. They are full of everything. We are pretty ignorant over here, according to them. The government brings these people in and my view is that they should have left them where they were and we should have worked through this thing sensibly. Professor Kearney goes on to say:

It is noteworthy that fishing is fourth on a list of five key threats. Then, dealing specifically with New South Wales, the Science Paper states, 'approximately 60% of coastal wetlands lost or degraded over the last 200 years' and 'Increased nutrient levels and turbidity from urban and industrial discharges and catchment usage are the key causes of increased turbidity and nutrient levels that often result in a decline of seagrass habitats and diversity of species in soft-sediment areas'. Here I am not trying to draw attention to the repetition, but rather to note that this pivotal listing of key and direct threats to coastal environments, which are reported to have resulted in serious damage to 60% of wetlands, does not include fishing.

This document is widely available and I suggest that a few people read it.

In conclusion, I return to the issue of regulations. I will be watching with great interest and I will slam dunk the architects of this, if these regulations destroy the way of life of South Australians. You can expect that I will stand here and I will name the authors of these things. I will name the bureaucrats in this place and I will pillory them because it is absolute stupidity. It is about time that the Minister for Environment and Conservation grabbed hold of this by the scruff of the neck and showed a bit of testicular fortitude (which is probably difficult in her case) and fix up this thing properly. I do not have confidence in the government to do it properly. Indeed, I hope that I am wrong; I would love to be proved wrong.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:40): I welcome this bill. It has taken a long time to come before the parliament; in fact, its genesis was with the member for Davenport and the member for Frome. I think that some people then got cold feet, and there was some agitation around the place—as there always is when someone wants to protect the environment. There is always agitation from those who want to use the environment for their own personal benefit. Certainly, if any money is involved, the environment usually gets secondary consideration. I commend the government and the minister on finally getting the bill to the parliament.

It saddens me to hear the member for Finniss talk in the way he does, because he is guaranteeing that the Liberal Party is unlikely to be elected with any support from the metropolitan area when it takes an anti-environmental approach. Over time, some Liberals, such as David Wotton, David Brookman and a few others, have distinguished themselves by having concern for the environment. Sadly, when it comes to the crunch, too often the Liberal Party looks at the almighty dollar and forgets about the environment. In that regard, it is slightly better than the National Party, which is the most skilful environmental vandal in the nation.

I come to this proposal with great support. In one sense, it probably does not go far enough, and I agree with the member for Finniss (and it is probably the only thing I agree with him on) that it avoids facing up to reality in metropolitan waters. We know that, since European settlement in South Australia, the land has been raped environmentally by we Europeans. The record of the treatment of the natural environment in South Australia has been nothing short of appalling.

Less than 5 per cent of native vegetation is left in Adelaide (perhaps 3 per cent if we are lucky). There are probably three pieces of significant vegetation left in the metropolitan area. Beyond that, in the Adelaide Hills, it is between 20 and 30 per cent, most of which is degraded; and, further out, huge areas have been cleared unnecessarily, some of which is as a result of a government requirement on people who took a lease.

The oceans have been similarly plundered and raped. The coastline off the metropolitan area is literally a marine desert: sea grasses have been destroyed and the reefs close to the CBD have been essentially destroyed. This is partly as a result of ignorance (and you can say that for years gone by) but, in more recent times, it is just greed that has resulted in the destruction. We are slowly moving to address the protection of the marine environment, and this bill will help in matters such as storm run-off and the treatment of grey water. It is happening far too slowly, but it is happening.

However, whenever there is a move to protect the environment, all the usual suspects come out, work together and say that their inalienable rights are being taken away. It is a pretty thin argument, because the consequence of such a cowboy mentality and approach, by people who are basically philistine in their outlook, is that the environment is not only degraded but also destroyed. We hear people talk about global warming, using the rhetoric of greenhouse gases and so on but, at the same time, they are doing very little to protect what little is left of biodiversity on the earth. It is just nonsense.

You cannot be partly for the environment; you cannot be partly an environmentalist. You are either an environmentalist, who understands the interrelation and interdependency of the ecological system or you are not. It is like saying that you are partly pregnant: it is a nonsense. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. You cannot say, 'I am for the environment here, but I am not for the environment there.' Nature is interrelated and interdependent. I will provide the literature to people who do not understand that in order to let them understand basic ecological principles. You cannot be selective in regard to the environment; you have to be consistent in your application. We need to be consistent in terms of managing the environment on land but also in regard to the ocean and the marine environment.

Slowly, attention is focusing on the marine area, because a lot of it, sadly, by definition is out of sight and therefore out of mind. We have had people rape and plunder it. It is exactly the same as used to happen in relation to killing whales, and, sadly, we still see the Japanese fleet heading off under the ruse of scientific research to kill whales, which we know they will eat. We get the same sort of nonsense from people here who suggest that they can have their cake and eat it too in terms of the environment, that people can do what they have always done in relation to fishing, and whatever, and that it will not impact on the environment.

The reality is that the sea off Adelaide has been largely fished out. The people who catch the fish now are those who can go out in decent sized professional units, because close to Adelaide it has been fished out. It is the same as the fauna on land that has been wiped out in many areas. It is a disgraceful record. I would call the people who fail to understand 'the unAustralians', because they do not understand the ecology of this country, they do not practise protection of the environment, and they are in the true sense unAustralian. They could be living anywhere. They have no regard for the natural environment of this continent, just as they often have no regard for the traditional culture of the indigenous people. I categorise those two groups, who lack that understanding, who practise vandalism against the environment, and who have a lack of respect and understanding for traditional people, as unAustralian.

So, what do we have in this bill? We have a mechanism which may help and should help to protect and conserve examples of the various marine habitats around South Australia. It is a big call; it is a big challenge for the legislation to deliver. I am not as cynical as the member for Finniss about the regulations that will be drawn up. I do not know why so many people in here continually bash public servants.

In my experience, I have yet to come across a public servant who is not dedicated to the task of serving the people of South Australia. Yet, too often in here we get references, innuendo or inferences about public servants in these departments, who are often highly educated and highly trained people, who put forward recommendations. They are subject to disparaging remarks by people in here who are nowhere near as enlightened, often, as the public servants whom they denigrate.

As I said at the outset, I compliment the government on this bill. There have been some fantastic people in the Labor Party tradition—I am not a member of the Labor Party; I am a small 'l' liberal—who have done great things in terms of protecting the environment in South Australia—people such as Don Hopgood. If it was not for people such as Don Hopgood there would be very little native vegetation left in South Australia. If you look at places such as New South Wales, Bob Carr has a fantastic record in terms of what he set aside for national parks. He will be long remembered for that—long after people forget all the other things about trains, buses and anything else—as a premier who contributed so much to New South Wales in terms of protecting and providing for the continuation of ecosystems that have evolved over millions and millions of years.

Locally, as I said, I pay particular tribute to people such as Don Hopgood. Thank God for someone of his character, vision and foresight, who was able to be innovative in relation to environmental measures in this state.

In fact, we are still living off the back of people like Don Hopgood. We are still in debt to people like David Wotton who, often against great odds, in cabinet managed to do a lot in a positive way for the environment. Much of our legislation dates back to the early '70s. I refer to the Coast Protection Act, for example. The Coast Protection Board is an organisation that needs to have its teeth sharpened and given a bit more clout because, too often, its recommendations are ignored by councils and other bodies around the state.

We have not been good at managing the marine environment. One only has to look at the coastline close to Adelaide to see what a hotpotch it is. We used to have a natural system which filtered rivers coming down to the ocean, through wetlands and sandhills and the like, but now there is a system where stormwater and greywater gush out into the ocean denuding seagrasses and the like. Clearly, a measure like this ideally needs to be integrated with what should be happening in other states, because the ocean does not stop at the state border. One would hope that we are increasingly moving towards an integrated approach to environmental management of the whole of Australia.

There have been a lot of cowboys in Queensland who have delighted in raping that state, as well, in terms of destruction. Those sorts of people unfortunately still exist around the country—in Tasmania, for instance. Generations to come will look back and say, 'Why did those people do that? Why did they rape their motherland in the way that they did?' Sadly, we see it in relation to the use and abuse of water in the Murray system and, once again, it is not just National Party cowboys upstream (although a lot of them are) who come into that category.

The people concerned have no regard for the environment. One can see what is happening to the River Murray. We know there is a drought and we know there is a shortage of water, but there is no concern for environmental aspects. We just have to look at the Coorong and what is happening there; there is no concern for the environment at all. There is a lot of talk, there is a lot of claptrap and a lot of ideological spin, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty, there is not a lot of on-ground protection and respect for the environment.

I do have a degree of passion for this issue because we are and should be custodians of this land. The Aboriginal people, the traditional custodians, could have lived their lifestyle forever. No-one is saying that we should live that lifestyle, or indeed that they should; however, the reality is that they could have lived forever in that particular lifestyle because it was self-sustaining. They had the philosophy that the land owned them, not the other way around; not the way that we see the land as something that we can own and do what we like with and abuse and misuse. We need to increasingly adopt some of the value systems that the traditional people had. Sadly, many of their own people these days are not aware of the fantastic values within the traditional cultures of the 300 tribes that inhabited this land.

To conclude, this bill is a step forward. It will not necessarily do what we would all wish, but it does show that, in some aspects at least, this government is committed to protecting the environment. There are issues, at times, where I am critical of this government and will continue to be, where I do not believe it is acting quickly enough, vigorously enough or comprehensively enough. However, when it does the right thing, I will support it all the way. This is an example of where it is taking a positive step forward. It is not perfect; there are people who will still be unhappy, but you cannot protect and conserve without treading on the toes of some people.

The member for Finniss mentioned compensation, and I do not have a problem with compensation where it is appropriate. However, you have to remember that many of the people who are using the natural environment never paid a cent for it, or paid very little by way of licence fees, but expect to get a big payout when society says that what they are doing is inappropriate and needs to be controlled or curtailed. The sooner this measure is in place the better. I have confidence that the regulations will help deliver what is needed. It is one small step, and it is a welcome step by the Rann government. I commend the minister for it; and in so doing I acknowledge the original genesis from the members for Frome and Davenport.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (12:55): I speak in support of the marine parks proposal brought into the parliament by the government. The legislation has been the subject of extensive consultation, and the consultation has raised considerable anxiety. However, at the end of the day, in principle, the legislation has the support, I think, of just about every member in parliament. The legislation sets up a scheme for marine parks. It is important to note that the detail is yet to be worked out.

The detail will come in management plans to be worked out by the department in consultation with water users and other groups. I am told that the ambition is that initially there will be about 19 marine parks. It will take some time for that to work out. In terms of the content of the management plans, it is probably fair to say that there are anxieties on the part of recreational and commercial fishers on the one hand and environmental groups on the other hand, because we just do not know what the detail will be.

I trust that the government has the right intention in this matter. Ultimately it is a matter of creating balance. At the moment there is not sufficient balance in the sense that there is not sufficient protection of the environment, in particular the creatures that live in the sea. With those short comments, I am pleased to add my support to the bill; and, with many others, I look forward to seeing the fine print when management plans are ultimately produced.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (12:57): When this bill was put before the house I felt very angry. Once again, Eyre Peninsula (most of which I represent) is targeted with the possibility of 11 of the proposed 19 marine parks despite this region producing about 65 per cent of the state's seafood while having what are widely acknowledged as the best practice fisheries in the world, for example, the prawn and rock lobster fisheries.

The implementation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in North Queensland has caused a huge amount of grief to users, with compensation blowing out from an estimated $500,000 to $2 million (suggested by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) to more than $200 million since its inception.

This government's initial marine park at Encounter Bay on Kangaroo Island caused a major uproar—about 13 per cent of which was designated as sanctuary and restricted-access zones, that is, no take areas. However, in reality, a much larger area has been segregated and quarantined. In fact, it is about 35 per cent of the fishable area, with no compensation to fishers. The outcome has resulted in a greater effort in a smaller area putting more pressure on what is already deemed to be fully exploited fish stocks.

A number of factors determine the waters where commercial fishing and aquaculture industries operate, therefore effort occurs only in areas where production is viable. In South Australia this equates to a very small percentage of the total marine environment. Fishing and aquaculture industries have voiced concerns that a significant proportion of this productive water will be designated for marine protection, just as it was at Encounter Bay.

To avoid the angst that was caused with this initial marine park, the government turned the process around so that the legislation would be passed without actually designating the locations and boundaries of marine parks. This is a very risky option from the point of view of users of these areas who will have to rely on subordinate legislation to ensure that their interests are protected. Hopefully, the formation of the Marine Parks Council will now provide a conduit to stakeholders to voice their knowledge and opinions to the minister, but will the minister listen? Further to this, each marine park should have a local consultative committee that will provide a tangible medium to engage adjacent communities, local knowledge and even encourage some local ownership.

Chris Thomas, who was involved with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, is in charge of South Australia's marine parks, and in an ABC transcript of 6 December last year, is quoted as saying:

The Department for Environment and Heritage says the state's 19 new marine parks will be located where they will inconvenience the least number of people.

Debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:00]

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT