HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARINE PARKS

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (14:27): In light of the last question, my question is to the Minister for Environment and Conservation. In determining the boundaries for Marine Park 6 adjacent to the Lower Eyre Peninsula, will the minister be adopting advice provided by the Marine Park 6 pilot working group established by his department? At the government's invitation, representatives of the Lower Eyre Peninsula recreational and commercial fishing industries and local government provided through this pilot group an exhaustive submission that was supported by extensive input from highly credentialled scientists. There is a strongly held belief in the community that their findings and recommendations will be ignored.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Early Childhood Development, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (14:28): I am more than happy to take into account the advice that emerges from the working groups that I have established. I would also be grateful to know what the Liberal Party's position is on marine parks, because the honourable member has stated that there is actually no good reason for marine parks. So, he clearly does not actually agree with marine parks. We have the former minister for the environment, who is urging us to actually get on with marine parks, saying that they are such a great idea. I must say that I am a bit puzzled about who the shadow minister for the environment is. I do not think that that has been clarified.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I think they're all in the audition phase.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That's right. What emerged in the course of discussions about marine parks is that all parties to the debate—the environmental group and the industry group representing both aquaculture and other wild catch fisheries—really came to a pretty clear consensus, and that is that the idea of actually talking about and consulting on outer boundaries by themselves was not really the most effective way of dealing with it. Who actually imposed that amendment on the government's bill in the upper house? It was those members sitting opposite. They amended the legislation in the upper house to have us consulting on outer boundaries which do not change any of the rights and responsibilities.

Mr VENNING: I rise on a point of order. The minister is debating the issue.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! No, I do not think the minister is. I will listen more closely to what the minister is saying, but I do not think that he has strayed into debate.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Thank you, sir. It is a very important to understand the context of the question, because of the frustration of all groups (the conservation sector and the industry sector) which have been consulting on outer boundaries ahead of the process of zoning. What people want to know about is what you can do within the parks.

Why are we consulting on outer boundaries? We are consulting on outer boundaries because those members opposite, and their colleagues in the upper house, imposed on us an amendment to do so. So, I have to try to deal with the legislation that I have been presented with, which is to try to graft a process on to that, which is to have some preliminary looks at what the zoning would look like.

That was what both industry and conservation groups put to me. They said to me, 'Let's have a preliminary exercise to look at what the zoning might look at so that we can consider the outer boundaries in that context,' and I, of course, agreed to that. They are very confident that they can reach agreement. Indeed, I must say that in the far West Coast there has been substantial agreement, and that will obviously be very influential in the way in which we choose to configure those outer boundaries.

In the South-East there has also been a fair measure of agreement about these matters, and that will obviously influence our thinking. In the area that the member asks about, that is, the Port Lincoln area, park No. 6, there has been a very wide divergence in points of view between the various sectors. The working groups have not been able to come up with an agreed position, so that puts me in the position of having to consider the competing contentions, which I will do, and make a decision based on those competing contentions.

I must say that I think that all groups that have participated in the process have found it to be valuable. Despite those opposite trying to whip up community concern and fear around the marine park process, despite the most intemperate remarks stating that recreational fishers will be locked out of almost half the state's waters (a complete misrepresentation of the position), despite the fact of the former shadow minister urging interested parties, particularly local governments along the coast and recreational and professional fishing associations reliant upon marine-based activities for their viability, to actively campaign against the current proposals—despite all that—those groups have actually been in active dialogue with the government and we will come up with a sensible solution which will deliver world class marine parks, but also strong viable commercial industries, while also protecting the lifestyles of recreational fishers.

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