HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject 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 (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 1706.)

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (18:16): I will continue with a quote from an ABC transcript, as follows:

The Department for Environment and Heritage says that the state's 19 new marine parks will be located where they will inconvenience the least number of people. Marine Parks Program Manager Chris Thomas says that is part of the reason why most of the 19 proposed parks will be located in the waters off Eyre Peninsula. None is proposed for the seas near Adelaide.

I think the restoration of the waters off Adelaide and other coastal cities is of vital importance, and it is for this reason that I had an amendment drafted specifically asking that the minister investigate whether a marine park should be established as a restoration area in Gulf St Vincent, adjacent to metropolitan Adelaide. However, I believe this can be done within the existing legislation, as could areas adjacent to our other coastal cities, and I have decided not to proceed with the amendment.

However, marine environments in areas adjacent to our cities are even more important, with desalination plants being proposed on Gulf St Vincent off Adelaide and Spencer Gulf off Whyalla. This is particularly so if, as I have been reliably informed from several sources, the government marine scientists (who have the greatest knowledge of these areas) have been gagged from voicing their concerns about the proposed desalination plant at Whyalla.

The approach of the Department for Environment and Heritage to the introduction of this bill is in direct conflict with the government's regional impact assessment statement (RIAS) policy. This supposedly mandatory policy requires government agencies to conduct a RIAS before any government decision that significantly impacts on communities is implemented. However, to date no economic or social impact study has been conducted to evaluate the implications and consequences of the introduction of marine protected areas on regional communities and industry stakeholders. It is not acceptable to be told that they will occur 'in due course'. Before proceeding any further with this bill, a regional economic and social impact study should be undertaken.

Communities are concerned about the lack of detail and explanation by the state government about how the existing and potential commercial and recreational fishing and aquaculture activities will operate once the marine parks are implemented, so many are unaware of the possible long-term implications for their businesses—another reason why RIAS is critical. There is further worry in that there are no safeguards for cost shifting and cost recovery.

This bill has a smell about it, similar to the Natural Resources Management Act which has created an art form in cost shifting. If the general populace wants the warm, cuddly notion of protecting the marine environment, then the entire state should pay for it. However, in line with NRM funding I am concerned that it will be the people in the areas of the marine parks who will end up paying, not their city counterparts whose coastal waters, I am told, are already so degraded that they are not being considered for the location of a marine park.

Labor's lack of understanding of business and how communities work is supported by the bland dismissal of the impact that the implementation of this bill may have on supporting industries, such as tackle and bait shops, fuel suppliers, marine mechanics, the tourism industry, caravan parks, accommodation, and so on. That is in direct contrast with the experience of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, when a number of people, including members of parliament, took about two years to come to an arrangement to help fishers and businesses, all of whom were impacted upon by the legislation.

We are being asked to vote on a bill that gives a minister unprecedented power; a bill that impacts on individuals, communities and businesses associated with commercial and recreational fishing, without knowing what the compensation will be. How will fishers be compensated without having to go to court? Is this another River Murray net fishing debacle, where net fishers had to take compensation through the courts and, I believe, received less than their costs in compensation despite winning the class action? The proposals for compensation are still too vague.

We also have to vote on whether or not the bill will protect species or prevent a species from becoming extinct, precisely where the parks will be, what will be allowed, and how much a bureaucratic enforcement regime will cost and who will pay for it. An August 2007 article in Ausmarine states:

Australia's marine protected areas now comprise about one-third of the global total and with planned additions this is set to soon become close to half the world's MPAs. Yet not a single marine species in Australia has been lost or is in danger of loss. A much more empirical, rational, evidence-based approach to management is sorely needed.

Professionals in the various branches of fisheries in South Australia are concerned that since all six fisheries in the state are fully exploited, what arrangement will the government undertake to buy out 15 per cent or more if the Encounter Bay model is the norm?

Some 11 of the proposed 19 parks will be located along the coast of Eyre Peninsula. The Great Australian Bight Marine Park already takes in a large area west of Ceduna. The region's economy is dependent on fishing, aquaculture, farming and tourism industries. As stated, Eyre Peninsula produces approximately 65 per cent of the state's $500 million plus retail seafood industry. Therefore, sustainable industries, as well as sustainable fisheries, are extremely important, particularly with the drought on the land impacting so severely. The commercial fishing sector is a major employer in the region and the activities of the industry generate significant economic and social flow-on benefits to the region, the state and, indeed, the nation.

The aquaculture industry on Eyre Peninsula is also acknowledged as a key driver of the region's future economic growth. In recent years, the industry has grown dramatically, with an increasing range of species being commercially produced. South Australia has developed a strong international reputation for sustainably producing a consistently high quality, premium seafood product for overseas markets. Oyster farming, for example, is labour intensive, providing hundreds of jobs in isolated rural communities.

Tourism is the third largest industry on Eyre Peninsula. In summer, there is a significant influx of visitors in all the coastal towns and many visitors return to the same local area and stay from one week to several months.

The seafood and recreational fishing industries have a history of contributing towards long-term sustainability for the marine environment, with existing rules and regulations in place to ensure that specific and cumulative harvest rates and practices are sustainable. So why is the government ignoring these effective decision-making partnerships and adding yet another layer of bureaucracy, requiring compliance, surveillance, enforcement and possibly 'user pays' funding?

Regional stakeholders are very concerned, particularly about exactly where the boundaries and no-take areas of the marine parks will be. Marine parks should be about sustainability of the environment and the industry. It is important that the criteria and decisions about the boundaries are not just based on technical and scientific information from bureaucrats and scientists who have no local and historical practical knowledge but include those in the industry who have good practical and historical understanding of the areas. Boundaries should include landmarks, not just be designated GPS points, as many small recreational boats do not have the necessary equipment to detect exactly where they are.

That was an issue in Queensland where, until on-the-spot fines were imposed, accidental transgressions have left some people with a criminal record. The issues of compliance, management and ongoing monitoring do not appear to have been given serious consideration by the government. The evidence in other states has shown that the lack of resources is linked directly to large numbers of fishing violations.

Any concept of marine protected areas is worthless unless funding is provided for comprehensive compliance. Due to the size of the areas, the cost implications for enforcement will be substantial. There is good evidence that government officers in the regions are severely under-resourced, particularly when looking at a region the size of Eyre Peninsula. The under-resourcing of our land-based parks are proof of this. It would be physically impossible for the existing staff to take on this additional responsibility, that is, four staff covering an area from Venus Bay to the Western Australian border. Is the government expecting regional communities to undertake monitoring in some sort of voluntary capacity, as they have for our land environment? A detailed and cost compliance plan should be prepared for all existing and proposed marine protected areas prior to any further action being taken.

The South Australian Strategic Plan is the government's strategic vision for the state. The established targets apply to all South Australians and the regions have an important role in the South Australian Strategic Plan. Regional industries are expected to drive economic growth, build sustainable communities, treble the value of exports, reduce regional unemployment rates and increase productivity. I believe the Marine Parks Bill and the MPAs are in direct conflict with these targets, as the underlying philosophy of this entire concept is essentially about reducing the areas available for aquaculture and fishing effort. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the fishing and aquaculture industries will be able to achieve these targets when they will have a less productive area to work with than ever before. Consequently, Eyre Peninsula's contribution will also be impeded as these industries, the tourism industries and local communities struggle with fewer businesses and operators.

Ninety per cent of the state's population lives in half a dozen cities and they do not really have much contact with the realities of food production within our environment. It is more a romantic notion of the Outback and an unspoiled marine environment that is driving this bill. Eyre Peninsula's industries are vulnerable as the viable commercial areas are relatively small and any closure through the introduction of marine protected areas could potentially mean the displacement of many fishers from regional communities. This will be devastating for coastal communities on Eyre Peninsula and for South Australia.

No-one denies that a balanced approach to the protection of the marine environment must be taken. There is no commitment to or mention in this bill of restoring the marine environment. Chris Thomas, the Acting Manager of Coast and Marine Conservation, said:

This is not the policy; the idea is to save what we have in a Noah's Ark type scenario that will then flow over into the rest of the environment.

Marine life does not move freely from protected areas to non-protected or degraded areas. I refer again to the Aquamarine article which states:

The primary beneficiaries of the establishment of the park are acknowledged by the Marine Parks Authority to be those who manage and promote the park. This group constitutes the marine parks authority.

In other words, another government bureaucracy.

Finally, I draw the attention of the house to the emergence of new opportunities that are sometimes stymied by red tape and bureaucracy, and laws made before such opportunities are recognised. One such is seafloor massive sulphide (SMS) deposits with high concentrations of valuable minerals that may well be better and more environmentally sound sources of minerals than the mostly land-based ones currently being mined. One such example is in Tonga. I refer to Nautilus Minerals Chief Executive Officer, David Heydon, who said:

The exploration licences granted in Tonga cover a strike of over 900 km of highly prospective geology known to contain seafloor massive sulphide ('SMS') occurrences. The prospectivity of the granted exploration licences has been demonstrated by initial survey work undertaken by marine scientific research ('MSR') groups, including groups from the USA, Japan, Korea and Germany. These MSR groups have identified at least 10 prospects where SMS accumulations have been observed. Surface sampling by these MSR groups over just five prospects returned average results of 22.7 per cent zinc, 4.7 per cent copper, 2.0 g/t gold and 77 g/t silver from 231 samples. These results are similar to our experience in PNG [Papua New Guinea] where MSR groups initially discovered a number of systems, with further work by Nautilus confirming the tenor of mineralisation in these systems and rapidly discovering others.

Will these marine parks be able to accommodate similar opportunities off our coast, I wonder, or will the mining companies be entangled in endless red tape and go elsewhere?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (18:30): I do not think it would be a surprise to anyone that I am not too struck on this legislation. It is one of Sir Humphrey Appleby's finest efforts—and I speak from some experience. I well recall the great battles the oyster growers had at Smoky Bay and elsewhere when they originally set out to establish oyster leases. People within the department thought they knew better and determined that it would be a terrible thing to have oyster leases; they might employ people and they might produce something.

There was one character from the department who tried to make them establish the oyster leases at Smoky Bay in the wrong spot! It was very fortunate that I managed to convince the then premier, Dean Brown, to pay a visit to the area. That was the end of the opposition, and the fellow in question was given his marching orders out of the place and told not to come back.

So, I have grave reservations. If we are going to allow for large coastal areas to be set aside, we have to be very careful that we protect the important industries that rely on access to these areas. It is all well and good to set aside and conserve large areas of land and sea but, at the end of the day, we also have to have things for our people to do and we have to have jobs. If governments want to have resources to spend and to play Father Christmas with, someone has to earn the money and pay the taxes—and, if you lock them all up, they cannot do that.

I recall all the nonsense we had when people wanted to explore out of Ceduna. From what went on, you would have thought we were going to shift the pyramids. Yet, I put it to members that very few members of the public have had the opportunity to examine this very large piece of legislation, certainly not in detail, and they will become aware of some of this only when it becomes law and they unintentionally contravene some of these provisions.

Some of the provisions in this bill are appalling. I draw to the minister's attention clause 35, which talks about hindering, etc., a person engaged in the administration of this act, that is, one of these junior Sir Humphreys they put a uniform on. Suddenly, they becomes all important. Some of these people think they are going to save the world, racing around like Pinocchio, bobbing their head and coming up where they are not required.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That's true with these characters; it's a breed. I don't know whether we breed them, but we seem to have acquired them. Just look at the provisions. Clause 35 provides:

(a) without reasonable excuse hinders or obstructs an authorised officer or other person engaged in the administration of this act; or

(b) fails to answer a question put by an authorised officer to the best of his or her knowledge, information...

It goes on to refer to failing to produce a document or failing without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement, or using abusive or threatening language. You would really have to be absolutely the most tolerant person in the world if your hackles did not rise when confronted by some of these characters.

I thought that one of the hallmarks of a democracy is that you are able to question people, or you are allowed to object and complain, and that you are able to question some of these characters. Only last week, I had a most interesting experience in my constituency with a law enforcement officer who went overboard. He is currently answering a lot of questions—and we are nowhere near finished with him yet; we have just opened the door, depending on the responses I receive.

The bill provides for protection against self-incrimination, but what about having a 35A provision relating to an inspector who unreasonably questions a person or uses aggressive or threatening language? I put it to you, minister, that the average person is at a grave disadvantage when they are confronted by a government agency or inspector. Most people do not know their rights, and they are intimidated, so they should be protected. So, unless the minister can give me a good reason, it is my intention to have an amendment to this bill drawn up to say that inspectors have to behave themselves.

I have been fortunate to have an amendment of that nature inserted in a number of pieces of legislation to protect people, because it is true that the people in question are over-bearing, unreasonable and unwise. The only protection a person has is to go to their member of parliament, and I will give members an example. I know of a fellow who recently issued an order to people and, when they objected, he said, 'Well, so what?' and he made them go almost from the New South Wales border down to Adelaide because they had a cracked mirror.

We live in a democracy, and I have grave reservations about this bill. We should be looking at some of the powers that will be given to these authorised officers. Whoever is responsible really takes the cake here. Clause 34 provides that an authorised officer has the power to:

(a) enter any place; or

(b) inspect any place, works, plant or equipment; or

(c) enter and inspect any vessel or vehicle, and for that purpose require a vessel or vehicle to stop, or to be presented for inspection at a place and time specified by the authorised officer; or

(d) give directions with respect to the stopping or movement of a vessel, vehicle, plant, equipment...

How do we know whether giving a direction about the stopping of a vehicle or vessel or telling a person they have to bring a vehicle or vessel for inspection is a reasonable or wise request? What if it is unreasonable? What right does the person have in relation to these types of orders?

It is all well and good to bring in legislation, but we are entitled to answers to these questions. I want to know who determines what is fair and reasonable. If a person objects, what rights do they have? If someone says, 'It is unreasonable to take a vehicle where you requested me to; I'm not going to do it,' what rights does that person have? We are entitled to know and we are entitled to have that explained to us because, once it leaves this place, it is then in the hands of people who are the architects of it, and it could be open season.

There is a huge number of requirements in relation to these particular provisions. I hope that honourable members have read this document and understand it. The Hon. Caroline Schaefer in another place did an excellent job.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, you've put me off. It takes a lot to get me on my feet and now I have lost my train of thought. I am a bit nervous about the whole process; nevertheless, I will give it my best shot. I might have to start again, and I will have to wind myself up, because when I make a speech I have to think about it all night.

Mr Venning: A lot of preparation.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: A lot of preparation; that's right. I have read through this legislation very carefully, because it is no good for us to sit here, taking it easy and rubber stamping these things. The parliament assembles to debate these issues, and it is the proper role of members of parliament to question the executive. We are entitled to do so and, as annoyed as ministers and their officers get about the questions at times, so be it. That is what we are here for. We are not here to apologise.

I note that some Labor members are easily pacified. The member for Giles has been easily pacified about what they are going to do to employment in country areas. I was quite surprised at her comments the other day. Just after she spoke on the radio, I was told that a number of people would lose their jobs in my constituency, but we will talk about that on another occasion. Let's just go through more of these enlightened processes in this legislation.

The minister can delegate and the minister can issue permits—that is another interesting one. In this rather interesting document, the minister can grant a permit to a person engaged in an activity within a marine park. The regulation may limit the activity. What is the purpose of a marine park if we let people carry out certain activities? Why go to all the hassle and annoyance; why not just have good fisheries management in place and not go through this sort of nonsense, which will just inconvenience people? We know that eventually people will be stopped from operating. If I were involved in having a wager on various things, I would say that there will gradually be a tightening of the ratchet and people will eventually be excluded from these areas altogether.

It is no good giving people permits to fish if there are no fish. It is like excluding people from doing exploration in the mining industry. It is no good doing exploration if there is nothing there. One hears some of the bureaucrats, and others, saying they want to set aside these areas and not have any activity within them: you can set aside as big an area as you like, but if there are no fish there, no-one will use them.

I wonder how many members of this house have read the objects of the legislation, and there are a lot of them; there is over a page. It states:

(i) the maintenance of ecological process in the marine environment; and

(ii) the adaption to the impacts of climate change in the marine environment; and

(iii) protecting and conserving features of natural and cultural heritage significance; and

(iv) allowing ecologically sustainable development and use of marine environments; and

(v) providing opportunities for public appreciation, education, understanding and enjoyment of marine environments.

These things go on at great length. I wonder how many members have read through them and taken the trouble to understand their impact because, if they had, they would not be sitting idly by, nodding their head and hoping that this particular proposal will be dealt with and forgotten about, and moving on to the next process, which the government is seeking to do by way of press release.

I do not have any great thrill for this legislation. I have seen misused other legislation—which people have supported with the best will in the world—and people's rights impeded, with bureaucrats running wild. I must say to the minister that I am far from enthusiastic. I grew up and lived pretty close to the sea. I grew up with the people in the fishing industry.

Mr Venning: A greenie. He's a bluey.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I do not actually want to be insulted.

Mr Goldsworthy: He's a conservative environmentalist.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I've been called all sorts of things in my time here.

Mr Venning: We're going to be late for dinner. It's quarter to seven.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, that's your problem; you're the whip. You get paid a lot more to be whip, so you should organise things. However, we now have before us this complicated piece of legislation which people are getting particularly excited about. We heard from the member for Fisher, who is enthusiastic about certain things. His speech today reminded me of his action of voting for a proposition in the last parliament when the government did not even want him to vote for it. By one vote, we were not only going to remove that fellow they had as chairman of the EPA but also remove him from his role as chief executive. Most of the members were saying that it was a good idea. It was moved by the member for Mitchell.

Mr Goldsworthy: He's gone now.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That is a good thing. Anyway, Bob was ingratiating himself to the government and he was so keen that he nearly fell over to get across and vote against us. The government did not even want him to vote for it. On this occasion, he went on and talked about the environment. He did not seem to show a great deal of concern or interest about the effect of the fishing industry. I know what happened with the fishers of the River Murray. They were small groups that did not have a great deal of resources, and they were badly treated. People who have been fishing for generations were treated in a deplorable fashion.

The fishers of the River Murray had their nets taken away from them. They had a clear expectation that that right would continue and, even though there were only a few of them, that is no reason why a powerful organisation like the government should tread over the top of them. They were operating legally, and I do not believe they were properly compensated, and they were certainly treated in a shabby fashion. I, for one, am pleased—

Ms Breuer: Come on. Let's have some tea.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The member for Giles has just woken up. She has been studying the computer and we are looking forward to her making a contribution to this because I listen to her make—

Mr Griffiths: She already has made a contribution.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I am pleased; she might make another one—the second one for the session. We do not often hear from her.

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I have provoked John. However, I know members are keen for me to continue. I intend to move an amendment in relation to those dreadful inspectors because I want to see people's lives protected. I am not enthusiastic about the measure.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (18:47): I rise to speak to this bill. Many of the previous speakers in this debate have canvassed issues of concern. I wish to address two matters: how much this will cost to implement and enforce and who will pay for it. The simple answer to that is, whatever the cost, it will be to the taxpayers of South Australia. If the purpose and objective is sufficiently meritorious, the argument as to the extent of the cost diminishes as we progress with ensuring the meritorious aspects of the legislation.

I am concerned about the introduction of this measure, which has the admirable objectives of providing for a system of marine parks in South Australia and, as outlined in the objectives of this legislation, of assisting in the maintenance of ecological processes in the marine environment and a number of other important objectives that we do not overlook. The fact is that, when it comes to a system or a regime which is under the surveillance of an army of inspectors, it costs serious money.

I think these are the sorts of things that need to be addressed and should be answered by the government in dealing with this matter because I think that there are a number of current legislative restrictions which are imposed on South Australians to ensure the effective and continued life of marine animals and the environment within it to ensure that the sustenance of the ecological processes within that environment are adequate.

It may be that there are other initiatives that need to be introduced to protect the marine environment. I am not certain that the cost that will be incurred for a marine park is the answer. Let me give an example of that. When I inquired as to the proposed marine park in the southern region, which covers parts of the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island, it was indicated to me at a public meeting that it was expected there would be 11 officers appointed for the surveillance and supervision of this legislation. They all need to be paid appropriately and have the equipment to undertake that surveillance, whether it is in transport of motor boats, aircraft or something similar.

It is an expensive exercise and I think that it is incumbent on the government when it introduces this legislation to fully disclose the budgets that it proposes to allocate to these measures so that the parliament has the material before it to make that assessment. I think that the government has been quite negligent at best and mischievous at worst—although I will not allege that but it could be to that level—in not disclosing that sort of information to the parliament.

The second thing I want to raise is that there is a regime of penalties to be imposed on certain conduct of persons who breach the objectives of the act. The introduction in clause 37 of the general duty of care, which has been identified in other legislation of obligations that the public generally have in their duty of care, is quite a new initiative. I use the example of this clause, which is to introduce a new part 5 to the Marine Parks Bill, and I use it as an example of where there is inadequate information and, I think, a quantum leap into the area of penalties. For example, if we are driving a motor vehicle on the road we have a general duty of care to other road users, whether they be pedestrians, bicycle riders, other motor vehicle drivers and the like.

We have a general duty of care that we will comply with the road traffic law, and we are also obliged to extend it to those other users. The import of that is to ensure that that is abided by. If there is a breach of that duty of care and there is a consequence, or damage, or injury sustained as a result of that breach, the person offended or damaged or injured has an opportunity to make a claim, as a matter of the law of negligence, to seek some compensation—assuming, of course, that the perpetrator of the breach of the duty of care has some financial means and/or is insured to make that contribution.

This bill proposes a regime of legislation that extends the duty of care to a new level. Under this bill, it is proposed that, not only does a person have a general duty of care but, if they breach it, they are guilty of an offence. So, a general duty of care is proposed in this legislation that requires that a person must take all reasonable measures to prevent or minimise harm to a marine park through his or her actions or activities. Certain factors are to be taken into account regarding the measures required to be taken with respect to the nature of the harm, the sensitivity of the environment, and so on, and a person will be taken not to have contravened subclause (1) if they are acting in circumstances prescribed by the regulations. However, as usual, we have not been given any indication, or even a clue, as to what is to be in the regulations.

The clause goes on to state that, having contravened the duty of care, the person is guilty of an offence, and they are then subject to being the recipient of a protection order under part 6, or a reparation order or reparation authorisation. So, we are in the dark as to what defence, I suppose, will be allowed. Is the definition of 'his or her actions or activities' to include a proactive piece of conduct—and let me put this example. If a person has thrown a fishing line overboard from their fishing dingy, that may be interpreted as being an act in breach of this general duty of care, because it could cause harm to fish, and so on, and that would be unacceptable.

However, what if someone were a passenger in the boat or sitting on the shore, observing this act of throwing the fishing line over the boat, which could potentially cause harm to marine life? Are they under an obligation, by failing to report that person, with respect to a breach of their duty of care? These are the sorts of things that perhaps inadvertently will be captured by this legislation and, once introduced, it could cause much more unintended harm to people and to the whole purpose of this legislation. I just raise that as one example.

We are using a much heightened level; a large increase in the barrier of obligation. There are severe penalties. It is unclear as to how it will apply. It is even unclear as to what defences will be available under the regulations, and yet we are expected to pass this in good faith that it will precipitate a new era of protection to marine life. I think the government needs to come clean on a number of these issues. Perhaps it has not done the homework yet. If it has not, it should do so.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (18:56): I note that it is nearly 7, and I will speak quickly on the points that need to be raised. I want to get this through tonight, so I will not deal at length with the arguments raised by the other side. I will just make a number of general points, and I hope that the record from the other place covers all the issues that have been raised here tonight.

I thank members of the opposition for their support of this legislation. After listening to most of the speeches, one wonders about the sincerity of that support, but I thank them for their support. This bill has been amended in the other place and picks up a lot of the issues that other parties have raised. This is also a set of arrangements that were originally proposed by the now opposition and the then government in 2001-02 and, during my term as environment minister and that of my colleague, the Hon. Gail Gago, this has been brought forward.

These are the consequences of the policy positions that were articulated by Rob Kerin and Iain Evans six or seven years ago. They may not like that, but that is exactly the case. We have honestly and fairly gone through the process. It has taken a lot longer than Iain Evans would have wanted—in fact, he used to chastise me about the fact it has taken so long. However, we took that time because we went through a genuine process of consultation and discussion in trying to achieve consensus.

There are a whole lot of issues about that, and I will not go through them now, but I gave an undertaking to my good friend and colleague the member for Stuart in relation to his proposed amendment. I said to him that I would put on the record the fact that it is the government's intention that the officers who would be empowered to act under this legislation would also be empowered under the Fisheries Act, and any other relevant legislation: they would have multiple briefs, if you like. So, everyone who was a fisheries officer would know this. The example I cite is the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Bill. The officers empowered under that bill are also empowered under the Fisheries Act—and I am getting a nod of agreement. So, although I would oppose the proposition that the member wishes to put, in fact, it is already covered, because the officers will be empowered under the Fisheries Act.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: He was successful; I acknowledge that. I think that, in fact, if not all, the vast majority would be covered by that same legislation. So, I give the member that undertaking. I believe that this is really important legislation. It has been before us for a long time, but I think that, as a result of the long process of discussion, we have been able to get a bill that everyone can live with. I recognise that the majority of people in the water community (if one could look at it that way) have supported the general ideas. I know there are some concerns but I think that, largely, they have been addressed in the process of thinking about this legislation. So, I commend it to the house. I would particularly to thank Phil Conniff from the environment department, who has assisted me today, and Alice Graham, parliamentary counsel.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.


At 19:00 the house adjourned until Wednesday 21 November 2007 at 11:00.


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