HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARINE PARKS

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:49): I move:

That this house calls on the Minister for Environment and Conservation to place an immediate moratorium on the imposition of the draft sanctuary zones contained within the marine parks' outer boundaries for South Australia.

This is a critical issue, and let me say that this process has been going on now since 2002. We have had four ministers deal with it, and the current minister has been handed—I do not know what you would call it, but he has been handed it. The reality is that the Liberal Party, myself and many others support the marine parks concept. It has never been in doubt. We also support sanctuary zones.

What we do not support is this nonsense being perpetrated at the moment by the department for environment. The minister, minister Caica, is a decent fellow. He is actually a fisherman as well, I think, but what I see is a totally orchestrated campaign of misinformation and devious and dangerous philosophical bents and untruths being perpetrated by his department. In fact, I think it is actually voodoo politics that is coming out of the department for environment.

The minister has been misinformed and misled by senior bureaucrats, and he has had to go out and try to defend an impossible situation. He has had to put forward a contrary view to comments made by me, other members, many recreational and professional fishermen and many members of the community. The line he has been given by the department makes me feel sorry for him because I think he has been set up—absolutely, totally and completely set up.

These sanctuary zones should never have been instigated in the manner in which they have been instigated. It has been a joke. In my view, heads should roll in the department for environment for what has happened. It should not be allowed to go on. The suggested marine park areas, the outer boundaries, we can all live with those. Just remember again that there are no marine protected areas off the metropolitan cost. The sanctuaries were a joke.

Let me put on the record again that the department for environment went out two or three years ago and asked fishermen where they fished, and then they put them into the draft sanctuary zones that have come out. So, do you think that the community is wild? You had better believe it. I held nine meetings across my electorate, four on Kangaroo Island and five on the Fleurieu—530 people. Senior officers of the department have chosen to try to put me down on that in the media. I can live with that; I am a member of parliament. It does not worry me, but it is a nonsense.

I can tell you quite clearly in the house that at those five meetings on the Fleurieu the community lifted themselves from the floor and opposed the draft sanctuary zones in their entirety. It did not come from me. I made it quite clear at those meetings that I did not think they were right, but it was their call on it; likewise, on the island motions were put by the community to oppose the draft sanctuary zones.

Absolutely no scientific data has been put together with the draft sanctuary zones to go to the community, and shortly I will read into Hansard a letter I received from a gentleman on Kangaroo Island after the meeting over there. What I do not support are acts of environmental bastardry being coordinated by extremist elements of the environment movement, both within and outside the environment department. It is absolutely improper, and it is not what we are about. I have sat there while smug and self-interested bureaucrats at these meetings have put down the public from both inside the meeting and from the periphery of the meeting around the hall. It is absolutely outrageous.

We need sanctuaries. We have had aquatic sanctuaries in South Australia since the 1970s under the fisheries act. They have worked particularly well, and the community owns them and the community very much supports them; they always have and I believe they always will. Only earlier this week, in a briefing in the Balcony Room with the minister for primary industries, from people from his department—and a senior officer was there from the department for environment—it became blatantly clear from the body language in that room, when the subject of marine parks and draft sanctuary zones came up, that the PIRSA officers had not been consulted.

They had not been consulted, to the extent that the minister for primary industries said that he was aware of the concerns and that he was calling in industry groups—recreational, profession, whatever—to speak to them. They are being usurped by the department for environment, and I think it is absolutely outrageous. It needs an inquiry, whether it is a committee inquiry or a select committee in the other house. This whole thing is a whole stinking carcass of a Department for Environment marine parks program. It stinks—it absolutely stinks—and it is not proper.

What is happening with these draft sanctuary zones is an alien culture for the people of South Australia. We are a free state, and we do not need to have some sort of bureaucratic dictatorship (where the poor old minister is the fall guy) running around telling South Australians what they may or may not do and trying to impose large areas of no-take zones without any apparent sense. They went around to these meetings in the last couple of weeks at Victor Harbor and Kingscote, which I attended. They put maps up on the wall, and they attempted to get some sort of semblance of common sense back into it.

Let me also put on the record that I believe that Mr Phil Hollow from the department has acted appropriately and honestly right throughout this. I do not believe that all of his fellow officers have, and it appals me. Let me just read a letter from Mr Ray Louth, which he wrote on 19 February. The letter states:

Hi Michael

I was disgusted with yesterday's meeting and the orchestrated manner in which National Parks took over and drove their own agenda.

I feel Islanders were not represented by the...[local advisory group] and were not given any respect as being an important part of the process, especially given the National Parks people had a pre prepared agenda (not the written agenda provided) and when they got started they took advantaged of a depressed lack lustre LAG group who just seemed overpowered by their pushiness. The gallery was hounded down by one LAG member who actually questioned the right for members of the gallery to be heard. I don't think this was to silence the gallery but rather to try to get a direct grasp on the process unfolding because the National Parks—

that really should read 'environment department'—

were just directing traffic and getting nods to their own agenda. If was as if some member of the...[local advisory group] did not care what they were saying because everything...[the department] was saying was the way things would be.

My four-page submission, which was handed to a LAG member prior to the meeting, was not even tabled or mentioned, yet decisions were made at that meeting that were contrary to any consideration of my proposal. What can I say, the National Parks people have orchestrated a process, and it appears our own LAG do not feel strong enough to even speak out or forward information on our behalf. Not just my submission but also the North Coast submission, it never even got to LAG members till just a short time before the meeting—

despite the fact that it was sent in on time—

and its contents was not mentioned or discussed. The word transparency was raised and we were told that one line public responses without any explanation, were considered and brought into the process. None of the origins of these statements were identified and this gives real rise to the real level of the National Park sham in this pretentious process.

...Let's make a move so that only the public responses that count are those where the originator is willing to be identified for what they say so that we can confirm the validity of the public comment. I cannot believe the level of push for different options for large areas of Sanctuary zones...The professional representation in the gallery alone all had overwhelming knowledge of the area and its value to the community and pro fishing, and they could not believe all these so called...Sanctuary zones should come from our community. I wonder how many even know the importance of the area—

this is I&G—

Without ownership and responsibility being taken for what is lodged, and obviously no control on the way...[the department] accepts information by those who make recommendations, anything can be said by anyone and it appears this has happened. I believe we are being manipulated into a commitment to meet the...[the department]/government wishes, and our responses seem to hold no value... Another very dangerous manipulation at the meeting was positioning. It was like the three dominant conductors at the front—

and this is the meeting the department conducted—

(All...[from the department], a scientist (again...[the department]) at the back in the gallery behind the...[group], and...[department's] support and a diver (supposedly an underwater expert) also positioned up the front, thus splitting the LAG's direction of concentration and firing information and questions to them from front and back. The words from the scientists at the back in the gallery, after being introduced and asked to speak by the...[department's] speaker at the front, were to this affect 'that if you don't make sanctuaries big enough they may be of no benefit at all.' This challenged the LAG from behind, they were being actively solicited for a response from the front and rear and it's this scissor action and negative power play—

this is from a public member—

the likes of which you would never see in a court of law or any fair play forum, that overtook the meeting.

No one is going to ostracize an islander for having their say, but we...cannot be adequately represented by a LAG who are overpowered and directed by an over zealous group from [the department] who appear hell bent on driving their own agenda and subsequently position themselves to do so. [National Parks] people are paid public servants...The balance of power is all for the government. Even some members of the LAG are questioning the probity of the Marine Park process because what was said to [Kangaroo Island] Council by [the department] was not in line with things said to the LAG at previous meetings. One LAG member told me outright 'they are liars'. One line statements from people who cannot be identified, and the acceptance and adoption of this by [National Parks] to reinforce their own agenda makes the whole process a sham and an embarrassment that should be exposed.

It goes on, but in light of the limited time that I have, I will go back to the second reading speech by minister Hill, who, at that time, was representing the then minister for environment in the other place. In that speech he referred to the fact that the definition of the bill addresses the issues of maintaining the economic, social and physical wellbeing of our communities and the functioning of our natural and physical resources, and that the government is committed to a transparent marine park process based on sound scientific advice and thorough community and stakeholder engagement.

There has been no scientific advice brought out. There has been no economic impact statement. The environmental, social and economic impact statements are not there at all. They say, 'Ah, but we'll do them now.' There is not much point when the community is in uproar in trying to reinvent the wheel. The department of environment has totally, completely and utterly destroyed this process by its actions. I repeat: heads should roll and it should go back.

I repeat also: the Minister for Environment and Conservation is a decent fellow and I believe that he has been used in this process. There are 236,000 recreational fishermen in South Australia (and remember that this was never meant to be about fishing), plus a large, important and well-managed—under the department of fisheries and the fisheries act—professional fishing sector. We have an absolute dog's breakfast taking place. As I said the other day, if the minister for primary industries is going to have discussions with the Minister for Environment and Conservation, he could well do to get in the Minister for Correctional Services because he is going to have another 236,000 prisoners to put in South Australian prisons. That is how serious it is.

People will not take note of this nonsense. This is not emotive nonsense but the reality. Last year, after taking a thumping in the state election, the Premier said that the Labor Party needed to get out and reconnect with the community. They have has not done that. In this particular case, this has been driven without any decent consultation until this current round of meetings, which, even then, leaves a lot to be desired. They are simply not up to the task. They are going to destroy livelihoods. Remember, it was never meant to be about fishing. When they are taken to task, they get extremely defensive and do not want to listen.

An abalone diver who was at one of the meetings that I attended was absolutely heartbroken over the way he was treated. This is not going to go away. The media, in particular, are right on it. We have heard it on radio and seen it in print. I am fed up to the back teeth with the nonsense being perpetrated. People can abuse me all they like, and if the local extreme conservationists want to have a crack, that's fine. However, the reality is loud and clear that the vast majority of decent South Australians in this case want something better than what is happening. The wheels are falling off it interstate—in New South Wales, Queensland and other places—and they will fall off here.

Finally, Tony Burke, the federal minister, has said there is absolutely no compulsion for the state government to follow along with this nonsense. There is no agreement in place which requires the state government to go down this path. I say, 'Go back to the drawing board and start this all over again.'

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:05): I wish to commend the member for Finniss for bringing this debate before the house, because it is an important one. There will be accusations made that political games are being played here. I can assure you that is not the case.

I base my comments on the meetings that I have attended on the Yorke Peninsula. The overwhelming number of community people who have contacted me via the telephone, emails, letters and people to whom I have spoken on the street since basically the last week in November is unheard of in my electoral office. A continuous stream of people are coming to this side of the chamber, because we represent those people who are doing a lot of recreational fishing, and they are enormously upset. It is impossible for me to make you understand without putting to you some of their concerns.

I have been to public meetings where people are really fearful about the future of their communities as a result of this. They understand and support the principle of marine parks, they understand the history about the fact that both sides of the chamber support the principle of marine parks, they can appreciate the fact that there needs to be some declaration of no-take zones, but they are very concerned about the impact this is going to have, because they believe they have been misled. They are the words they used to me; they believe they have been misled on this matter.

Those people who put in what I think are termed SAMPIT reports in the middle of last year, which indicated their fishing locations, did so on the basis that they believed that, by doing so, they were providing accurate information to the department for environment which would be used to avoid those areas. So, yes, the marine environment was protected in locations amongst the 19 marine parks, but the impact upon recreational and professional fishing opportunities would be minimal.

Overwhelmingly, the people I am talking to about this are complaining to me about how it appears as though every report that has gone in has been used to actually identify where the no-take zones or the sanctuary zones should be declared. There will be those who will stand up and say, 'Okay, science has justified this. The minister has appointed local advisory groups who are there to advise'—and all that sort of thing—'and to ensure that the process within communities is a smooth one.' That could not be further from the truth.

Local advisory groups, as I understand it, were not consulted on the location of the draft sanctuary zones. They were told at a meeting in either late November or early December, 'This is where the lines on the maps are going to be and you have to go out and try to defend it in the community.' Obviously, the first question to them would have been, 'Where is the science behind it? Where is the science that justifies the declaration of these sanctuary zones?' That is not available, either.

I started to get calls in the very first week that this started to become evident—and it is people from both sides of the political spectrum. One chap in Port Victoria, who is a very strong supporter of the Labor Party—his son has previously run as a candidate—is ballistic about this. He has been in constant contact with the minister's office. I have received many emails and have had a number of discussions with this chap; he wants to make sure the right process occurs.

I will just focus on Port Victoria, even though Marion Bay, Edithburgh, Port Moorowie, Stansbury, Balgowan, Chinaman Wells, Port Clinton, Price, Port Wakefield are all communities that are part of marine parks 11, 12, 13 and 14, which impact upon the Goyder electorate. They are coming to me and saying, 'What the hell is the parliament doing here? What sort of impost is it trying to put upon us, which is going to prevent us from having a recreational fishing future? What is it going to do to our town that supports recreational fishing opportunities?'

I go back to Yorke Peninsula, and particularly Port Victoria, because people have been most insistent about this: they are really concerned about the future of their town. There are about 400 permanent residents. They have seen the opportunity for the population to grow based around people who like recreational fishing. People come over, they bring their boats the first time, then they come back and stay a bit longer. They look at an opportunity to rent a holiday shack or they will buy their own holiday home and, eventually, they move there. That is how the cycle actually occurs.

Already there are people who are saying, 'If the proposed sanctuary zone around Wardang Island—which takes up probably two-thirds of the water surrounding that island—goes ahead, we are going to sell our properties and move away.' That is the sort of anger that exists out in the community. It is not just in my electorate; it is in the member for Finniss' electorate, I am sure it is in the member for Stuart's electorate, it is in the member for Hammond's electorate—it is everywhere. These people are coming to their members of parliament and saying, 'This situation has to be fixed. We cannot allow this to occur.'

These people are not just complaining; they are actually galvanising together as one. They are doing a lot of work. They are using scientific evidence to justify the recommendations that they are making to their local advisory group. There has been a series of meetings in the last week within the Goyder electorate where the LAG groups have met, and they have had submissions presented by these various communities, and it has taken some work to make that happen.

It is obvious that there is never going to be a completely uniform agreement about where the sanctuary zones may be. There is a variety of differences in opinion, but they have consulted with the recreational fishers, pro fishers, business operators and Indigenous communities to determine in that area—Balgowan, Chinaman Wells and Port Victoria—where they believe their recommendations should be.

I understand that they had a good hearing in a meeting held this week with the LAG group, and they hope that flows through, via that LAG group, to its chairman and then through to the minister, who I understand has some regular meetings with the 19 chairs of the marine parks; admittedly, there are only 18 chairs, as one person is chair of two groups because of a reasonably common boundary. These people just want to see a situation where they have a complete lack of confidence in the process reversed and indeed South Australia able to move forward, because it will affect regional communities.

The member for Finniss has highlighted the fact that there are 236,000 recreational fishers in South Australia. As a group, they are an enormous voting bloc. They are also a group of people who are prepared to expend funds to enjoy their opportunity to go fishing. Luckily, in many areas that results in a lot of visitation and a lot of economic growth that has occurred in the region. In my own area, having some 20 per cent of the state's boat ramps, recreational fishing opportunity has always been recognised as one of the key economic drivers in the area. If we get this wrong, it will be to the detriment of the regions, and it cannot be allowed to happen.

Every time a member of the opposition has spoken about this, it has not been to play political games. It has been to make the people of South Australia, the parliament and the members on the other side aware of the fact that this is a serious issue. Communities are continually bringing it towards us, and they want to ensure that there is some confidence in the process, because at the moment it has been entirely lost. There is a complete lack of faith out there, and the Minister for Environment and Heritage has an enormous job to try to recover some level of faith in this process, otherwise it will disappear forever.

They come to me with comments like, 'For a long time, we have had bag limits, we have had size limits in place, we have had closed seasons for various different species of fish.' Indeed, those people who do not want the marine parks say, 'Why don't you just uses existing tools to actually preserve the fish species?'

As part of the meetings that have been held in communities on Yorke Peninsula we had Mr David Pearce from the department of environment turn up. He is a chap who puts the case and listens to the arguments that are coming from the community and tries to inject that into decisions the LAG groups are making and the recommendations they will put to the ministers.

The chairs of the LAG groups are also good people—and I have known a couple of them for quite a long period of time—and they are committed to the process because they want to ensure that a good result eventuates from it, but there has to be a real fear now there has been a total con job played here. People came into it believing that there was going to be a positive outcome and that it was part of a national and international agreement.

We know now that Victoria, for instance, has some 6 per cent of its marine waters declared as a sanctuary or no-take zone. The target in South Australia appears to be 10 per cent. The fact that only 44 per cent of our waters have been declared marine parks and their outer boundaries means that, within each of those 19 parks, they are trying to identify up to 26 per cent to become sanctuary zones. It is going to kill the regional areas. It has to be reviewed.

The member for Finniss brings this to the parliament not to score political points but indeed to make the parliament, and primarily the minister, aware that this is an issue that will not go away. If it takes the fact that we have to have a rally on the steps of Parliament house involving thousands of recreational fishers taking their tinnies past Parliament House to actually make people understand, honking all their horns and blocking off North Terrace to make all South Australians aware of it, it will happen.

There is continuous feedback to talkback radio every day, and I commend Leon Byner for this, as he is taking up the issue very passionately. There is a continuous stream of calls coming in from people who have lost faith in them. They want that faith to be returned, but at the moment it has gone completely. Unless we get some really significant change very soon, there will be a lot more discussion taking place in the chamber about the fact that you are going to lose it.

I wrote the minister a letter on 1 December asking him seven questions. The first one was: have you done an economic impact statement to determine what the impact will be? The reply I got back four weeks later said, 'No, that's not going to happen until the draft management plans come out from the marine parks, probably expected to be September/October.' By then it is going to be too late, because the people of South Australia who like their recreational fishing opportunity and, indeed, the pro-fishing lobby groups are going to rise as one beforehand to hold this government to account.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:14): I am very much in favour of marine parks and protecting our marine environment, but I am certainly against the proposed sanctuary zones that have been put forward in our various communities. I think we should be, first of all, looking at what the real threats are to our marine environment. They are basically land-based activities; international shipping; industries located in the oceans such as oil drilling, gas drilling, aquaculture and inappropriate aquacultural processes; and, also, inappropriate fishing methods where nets or trawlers are used.

These sanctuary zones are not going to address any of those activities, basically, because, if there is an inappropriate activity happening, it may not be able to happen close to that sanctuary zone, so we will not stop that happening. We should be looking at our entire ocean and protecting it in the best way we possibly can. The federal government went into an international agreement which did not specify that there had to be sanctuary zones, and then the federal government, itself, went into agreements with all of the states on marine parks and there were no specifications there for sanctuary zones, so I think we should look at that very seriously.

If you have a look at the South East, there has been 114 square kilometres identified as sanctuary zones. Those areas have been identified with no proper science whatsoever, and it seems quite ironical to me that the group determining those areas went out to the community and asked where they fish mostly and, once they got all those areas on the map, that is where they decided to put the sanctuary zones. So, that was quite a smack in the mouth for those people who tried to cooperate so well with those departmental people.

The community in the South East is calling very strongly for habitat protection zones. They see the need to look after our marine environment for future generations, and they see that habitat protection zones, and identifying those larger threats, would achieve a lot more than we ever would with these sanctuary zones. You must also bear in mind that, in the South East, for about six months of the year you can not go out in the ocean anyway because it is too rough, so the ocean is certainly getting that spell. And, of course, the type of fishing we do down there with line and pots does not actually affect the environment at all, hardly, whereas, this whole thing is meant to be about environmental protection, not fishing protection. We have fish management programs in place so it is the environment we should be looking at through these marine parks, and the types of fishing that we do down there do not affect the environment unnecessarily.

If we look at the compensation that will be required, I find it quite ironical that when we talk about the forestry sale, we talk about how it is in forward estimates, yet when we talk about these marine parks I can find nothing in forward estimates to ascertain how much the government is going to pay for the compensation to professional fishermen. If you look in our area, if they take 10 per cent of the whole area for these sanctuary zones, you will have to take 10 per cent off the quota of both the lobster fishery and the abalone fishery, and I would suggest that that could cost the government up to $50 million, and there has been nothing put in place to show where that money is going to come from.

We will also have problems with how these parks are going to be funded into the future. Nobody has been able to tell me yet whether these parks will be managed through the NRM process—and, of course, those levies will have to go up—or whether the state is going to somehow miraculously find money to manage these parks. You are also going to have a problem where you have the environmental managers, and you have the fisheries managers, perhaps working against each other, and nobody can tell me at this stage who is going to be the one who determines how we manage our fisheries, if you have other people managing the environment. So the whole process should be managed by one group.

I am completely for protecting our marine environment. I think it is essential that we make sure that we have a great environment for our future generations so we all can enjoy its ambience and be able to catch a fish, but I do not know that the way these proposed sanctuary zones have been arrived at will achieve that. I suggest we should be going back to the drawing board. I have no problem with habitat protection zones and very small areas that are no-go for scientific purposes, but the proposals that have been put forward to our community are completely out of bounds as far as I am concerned, so I support this bill.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:21): I support the member for Finniss's motion for a moratorium on the imposition of the draft sanctuary zones. I think the important thing to recognise here is that it is a moratorium on the draft sanctuary zones; it is not a moratorium on marine parks. They are very different things. I will not speak for too long because I spoke on 26 October last year and also 8 February this year on this topic because I think it is very important, so I will not repeat all of the comments that I have made on marine parks already.

Very importantly, the science is very difficult. We would all like to think that we could get a scientific or technical explanation that would support us in making decisions, but there is science that supports and does not support this issue, so that makes it extremely hard.

With regard to the consultation process that has been undertaken, I think it is very fair to say on behalf of the vast majority of people who have been consulted that they feel it has been a very unsatisfactory process. I do not know whether the draft zones that have been put forward are really just an ambit claim from which they think they might negotiate back, or whether they were just a predetermined wish area that they would like to have and they thought they would throw it out and see how it goes but, really without exception, the groups that were set up to consult with say, 'The draft zones do not fit with what we recommended in the consultation process.' So that, in itself, says that the consultation process is extremely flawed and, certainly, this moratorium is well warranted until that consultation process gets back on track.

There are two key issues that I am most concerned about with regard to this process. The first is the economic impact on hospitality and tourism industries all around our coastline—and, in fact, well within our coastline. I certainly would not extend that to all of the far reaches of the electorate of Stuart but, certainly, this is not just a coastal issue: it is a city and metropolitan issue as well.

The economic impact will be felt by hotels, fishing shops, tackle shops, boat shops, motels and restaurants, at a time when we are doing everything we possibly can to improve regional tourism because regional tourism is one of the areas that certainly will support and benefit regional communities over the next decades. It is inappropriate to be taking an uneducated and uninformed decision in one area that will have such a negative impact on this area.

My other concern is that the idea of plastering excessive sanctuary zones onto the people of South Australia really does encourage people to relinquish a bit of their own personal responsibility. I have a genuine belief that the vast majority of South Australians are conscious and aware of the environment and want to do the right thing. The people who use the environment, whether they be pastoralists, farmers or fishermen (recreational or commercial), and who actually get out and are actively involved in activities outside of their homes, cities and towns are the ones who care the most.

When you say to people, 'Look, you can go here. You can't go there. You can do this. You can't do that. Here are all the rules. You don't have to think about it anymore. Just trust us, we're the government. We'll tell you what you can do and where you can go,' they stop thinking for themselves. People stop actually saying, 'Well, what do I think I should catch? Where do I think I should go? Where is the responsible place?'

I can tell members that there are very responsible commercial and recreational fishers who fish within the guidelines—and by that I mean not up to the very, very limit that they are entitled; they fish well within the guidelines because they know that that is the right thing to do. They know that over here they might get snapper right up to the limit, but over there they may not take them. It is the same with whiting and all sorts of other fishing because of their own personal environmental responsibility.

I think that, when you put too many of these guidelines in place, people will stop making decisions for themselves. It is a bit like the flood levy. 'I don't need to worry about whether I'm going to donate,' a person might say, 'because, if it's a really serious crisis, they'll just tax me, anyway.' This is an example whereby people might just be encouraged to stop thinking for themselves, and I think that anything that does that is very negative.

The member for Finniss mentioned the interaction between the minister for the environment and the minister for fisheries. Certainly I, too, have it on very good authority that the minister for fisheries has really not participated in this debate, and I think that is a great shame. No doubt he has his reasons for doing that; and I also believe that he is about to become very involved in this debate.

Certainly, to exclude or to not have the fisheries people involved in a discussion about something so serious as this that will impact on fishing—both recreational and commercial—is a nonsense. It just does not make sense. I also have a fear and a belief in that I think the minister is not taking as much personal interest and putting as much personal impact into this decision as he might. I fear that he is following the advice of his department, and that he is not leading the process himself in terms of taking and considering their advice.

It appears to me that he is really just following the advice that he is getting; and, in that context, without consulting other ministers and other departments, I do not think that we are going to get the best outcome. I do worry that over-zealous environmental protection is having and has had a major impact on the draft zones.

As members here know, the electorate of Stuart has a bit of coastline—far less than many others. There is approximately 100 kilometres on the eastern side of the Upper Spencer Gulf and approximately 25 to 30 kilometres on the western side, at the very top of the Upper Spencer Gulf. Through that, as well as supporting my colleagues in the industry, I take a very serious interest in all of the Upper Spencer Gulf. The Upper Spencer Gulf Marine Park is from just south of Whyalla, across to just south of Pirie and all the way to the top at Port Augusta.

The draft zones that have been put forward for that area are extraordinary—20 or, perhaps, 25 per cent, I think just from my own visual inspection of the maps. It is hard to do the calculations, but it looks like about 20 per cent of that area has been taken away, and that is crazy, and I would put that into the category of over-zealous environmental protection.

Members, I think on all sides of this chamber (and I can certainly speak comfortably on behalf of the members on this side), are really keen for the environment to be protected, and they are also really keen for the people to be able to use the environment, whether it is the bush, the outback, the River Murray or the coastline and the oceans responsibly. This is not about impeding that at all; it is about allowing that to happen in a responsible fashion.

I echo comments that have been made by the member for Goyder and the member for Finniss. This is not a political issue. The people who are coming to us in our electorates are not staunch Liberal supporters; they are not staunch Labor supporters. I think that this issue affects all sorts of people. I am sure that there are just as many strong Labor supporters with a tinny in the shed or the backyard as there are Liberal supporters.

This is not a political issue. This is about sticking up for the people we represent. This is about trying to find a very, very good way of looking after the environment and allowing people to use the environment responsibly, both in a commercial and recreational sense. It does not matter whether it is the person who might like to go fishing as a guest with their friends once a year, or whether it is the person for whom that is their real passion and their real hobby and they and their friends, family, partner or parents—whoever—get out and go fishing as often as they possibly can—or whether it is the family holiday. This is not a political issue. This is about trying to find the right way for all those people to be able to use and look after the marine environment as responsibly as possible. I do not believe that the draft sanctuary zones that are in place at the moment do that effectively, so I certainly support the member for Finniss in his motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we carry on with the contribution—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before we carry on with the contribution of the member for Flinders, I would just like to point out to both sides that towards the end of that debate it was actually quite hard to hear the member for Stuart because you were all chatting, which is fine, but chat quieter. The member for Flinders.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:31): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, do not mind if people chat quietly. I rise to support the motion from the member for Finniss. The motion asks for this house to place an immediate moratorium on the imposition of draft sanctuary zones. Those draft sanctuary zones are to be contained within the marine park outer boundaries in South Australia.

I do not think I have seen community angst like this in my region since at least 2008. I do not say that lightly, because in 2008 the community angst was against the country health debacle. So, what I am suggesting is that this is a very serious issue. It is an issue for people to be concerned enough to go to public meetings, to go to town halls and, can I suggest, possibly at some point come to the steps of Parliament House, such is the feeling.

I am supporting also the comments from the members for Goyder, Stuart, Finniss and Mount Gambier. I do not think the government has considered in all of this the economic impact that these sanctuary zones are likely to have not just on the regions, not just on the coastal communities, but on the state's economy as a whole.

In my particular electorate of Flinders, we have something like 60 per cent of the state's seafood industry, and they are very concerned; not only that, we also have a significant number of recreational fishers and we also visited very often by people from urban Adelaide on their summer holidays to come fishing.

A lot of our coastal communities rely very much on that tourist influx, the seasonal influx that is supplied by recreational fishers but, even more significantly than that, I would suggest that the commercial sector of the fishing fleet, based in Port Lincoln, Ceduna and up the West Coast, is really going to feel the impact of the sanctuary zones.

It is often talked about in primary industries where we have a multiplier effect through the regional economy. Often economists suggest that that multiplier effect may be six or seven times through the community from the original industry. So, we are talking about significant impact and effect.

The suggestion has been made that there is very little credible science around this current proposal by the government, and that certainly seems to be a theme that comes up time and time again. In fact, there is some science that is being uncovered now that would suggest that sanctuary zones will not have the impact that the government is hoping for, particularly on green habitat and also on fisheries. At your discretion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I might read into Hansard an article by Professor Colin Buxton of the University of Tasmania.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All of it?

Mr TRELOAR: No, just parts of it. It is not a big paper, Madam Deputy Speaker—extracts only. Professor Colin Buxton is the Director of the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute at the University of Tasmania. He has done some credible work that has been funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation—a government funded body—that certainly brings into question some of the science around sanctuary zones. He states:

Providing havens for marine life may be harmful, displacing fishing effort and slowing or reversing stock rebuilding, according to new research.

The article continues:

New research has shown that marine protected areas—established to provide a haven for marine plant and animal life do not always result in more fish and may [even] have a detrimental effect on fisheries.

It goes on to state:

This significantly damages the adjacent areas and can eventually lead to stock collapse.

What we are talking about is displaced effort: in fact, when fishing effort is removed from a particular area or a particular percentage of the ocean, the fishing pressure is relocated to the remaining area. It would follow logically that that area that is under pressure sees a collapse of fishing. Buxton states:

Marine protected areas might not be the best option and could even lead to a network of pristine areas in a sea of degraded habitat.

So you can see that there is certainly some science that brings into doubt the science that has been put forward by DENR. I believe this is a sledgehammer approach by the government.

There is very little credible consultation going on with the community and, in fact, I would even suggest that it is a solution looking for a problem, given the state of the state's fishing industries and the fact that they have been amongst the world's best-managed fishing industries for the last 20 or 30 years, thanks to the good effort of the fishing industry and also the department of primary industries, which I might add seems to have been sidelined in this whole debate. With those few words, I will support the motion for the moratorium on the draft sanctuary zones from the member for Finniss.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:36): I rise to support the motion of the member for Finniss. It is an important motion not just for those of us who represent seats around the state that have extensive boundaries on the sea but also, I think, for all South Australians. Recreational fishing is one of the biggest recreational activities undertaken in South Australia.

The professional fishing industries are incredibly important industries particularly to rural and beachside communities, bringing in many millions of dollars of income to those communities and underpinning, in many cases, the local economy. All of that is under threat due to this move to create not just marine parks but extensive marine parks containing extensive no-go zones. That is the problem we have here: it is the extensiveness of the marine parks themselves and the extensiveness of the no-go zones.

Nobody on this side of the house is against marine parks per se. Nobody is against the idea of establishing a series of representative marine parks and a series of representative sanctuary zones within those marine parks along our coastline. What we are concerned about is the impact on recreational and professional fishing in the first instance and also the impact of access by people undertaking other forms of recreation in the ocean and coastal waters.

If I can just cast back a little way, the government of South Australia has been grappling with this issue for a long time. Indeed it was when the Liberal Party was last in government in South Australia that the move to establish marine parks got underway. We accepted at that point the fact that our federal government had signed off on international obligations and the states had signed off with the federal government on helping Australia meet those international obligations, and we started the process of establishing a system of marine parks within South Australia.

One of the things that happened through that process was that some officers within the department—I think it was then the department for environment and heritage—took it upon themselves to take the running on this and, in fact, a public meeting was held in my electorate at Kingston in the South-East.

That meeting attracted some 450 very agitated local recreational fishers and local professional fishers, and it showed that the whole process was out of hand. The then ministers—I am pretty certain that Iain Evans was the minister for the environment and Rob Kerin was the minister for fisheries at the time—took a decision that they would jointly manage the process and that the politicians would take some responsibility. That is something the current government has walked right away from; that is, the politicians would be responsible for the policy and that those two men, as the lead cabinet ministers, would take responsibility for the process and take back the principle decision-making responsibility from the bureaucracy. At that stage the needs of the state—from the point of view of both the recreational fishers and the huge amount of economic activity which is driven by the recreational fishing industry—and the needs of the professional fishers would be taken into account.

It is obvious that the current process has completely reversed that. The process has got right out of hand, notwithstanding that the establishment of marine parks is not about protecting fish stocks. We all remember the advertisements run when the outer boundaries of marine parks were declared, which caused much anxiety in the community. The advertisements, in both the electronic and print media, all contained a picture of a fish and a small boy wanting to go out and catch the fish.

I remind the house that the marine parks legislation is not protecting fish stocks: that function remains, and will remain into the future, under the Fisheries Management Act. It is a completely different act and it is under the authority of a completely different minister, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. In my opinion, the department—and I say 'the department' because I think it is the department that is running this agenda—and the government, I guess, at the very least, have been dishonest with the South Australian people through this whole process. They are trying to make out that this is about protecting fish stocks.

As the member for Flinders said a few moments ago, we have probably the best managed fisheries anywhere in the world in this state. The fisheries management regime, which has been built up over many years, is one which we can be very proud of: it looks after our fisheries. The two prawn fisheries in the gulf are probably the best managed prawn fisheries anywhere in the world. They were brought back almost from collapse, not that many years ago, by a very strict management regime, and have been turned into very worthwhile, sustainable and valuable fisheries.

It is the same with the rock lobster fisheries. The southern rock lobster fishery, notwithstanding the fact that it has had a few headaches in the last couple of years—mind you, I talked to the previous minister a number of times about his tendency to continue to increase the quota and where that would take us, and, low and behold, we did get to that point and are now going in the opposite direction—is an incredibly well managed fishery, and the cost of managing the fishery is borne by the industry. Its management is not a burden on the taxpayer, the same as virtually all the fisheries in the state. The cost is borne by the industry.

We have these incredibly well managed fisheries which can, I think, hold their head up in comparison with any regime anywhere in the world, yet we have a department of environment trying to run the line that they are threatened and that is why we need these extensive marine parks with extensive no-go zones in them. Anyone who has followed this debate for more than half a second would know that the only part of South Australian coastal waters which is under serious threat—and it has been for a long time, and continues to be—is off the metropolitan coast of Adelaide. It is the only part of the state where there is no proposal to have a marine sanctuary zone. Why is that? The government knows that it is out of control, the government knows that it cannot fix it, and, probably more importantly, the government knows that if it impacts on that particular part of the state, there will be a voter backlash. This government will go out and impose very, very restrictive zoning in the coastal waters, in areas of the state where it does not have electors, and that is part of the problem with this process.

We have failed to recognise where there is a real problem and seek to address it. Instead, we have gone over the top, where there is no problem, because it will not have a political backlash on the government of the day. That is not the way to formulate public policy, it is not the way to govern our marine environment, and it is not the way to mitigate risks to that marine environment.

I commend the member for Finniss for bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I commend all members, at least on this side of the house, who actually understand the issue and have put their thoughts on the record here today. I only wish that the government would take this issue seriously, so that we can develop a good system of marine parks and a system of good management of our coastal waters and actually address the problems where they occur. Where people are doing the right thing, where the marine and coastal environment has been looked after and continues to be looked after well, leave it alone and let people get on with their lawful business and recreation.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:46): I am very pleased to support this motion by the member for Finniss. The motion calls on the Minister for Environment and Conservation to place an immediate moratorium on the imposition of the draft sanctuary zones contained within the marine parks' outer boundaries for South Australia.

I commend all the contributions from this side of the house. We have a great concern on this side of the house for our regional communities. In fact, we have a great concern, not just for our regional communities, but for the opportunities for people who live in urban areas and wish to go recreational fishing. This will impact on people right throughout the city and right throughout Labor electorates. There will be male and female fishers from electorates such as West Torrens and Torrens who will be affected by this. There are people in the minister's own seat of Colton who will be affected by this proposal, if it goes ahead. People right across the state will be affected and for what reason?

It has been said that the whole marine parks process is a solution looking for a problem, and that is what I think it is: a solution looking for a problem. It seems to me that there must be some people within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources who seem to think that we need to have a solution because we think there is a problem. What they do not seem to understand—and I think there is some friction between the department of agriculture, fisheries and forestry and the department of environment on this issue—is that our fisheries are about the best managed in the world.

They are managed under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and the Aquaculture Act 2001. I will just read a couple of appropriate parts of these acts. In the Aquaculture Act 2001, Division 5—Emergency leases, section 41 is about the granting of leases in circumstances of emergency. I quote from section 41(b):

the Minister is satisfied that circumstances of emergency exist such that the granting of the lease is warranted for the protection of the environment or the preservation of endangered aquaculture stock.

I think anyone could understand that, and we would like to think that people on the other side of the house know as well. Under the Fisheries Management Act 2007, section 128—Regulations relating to conservation and management of aquatic resources, management of fisheries and aquatic reserves and regulation of fishing, subsection (1) provides:

Subject to this section, the Governor may make regulations for the conservation and management of the aquatic resources of the State, the management of fisheries and aquatic reserves and the regulation of fishing.

They are only two sections from two substantial acts that manage both our commercial and recreational fishing in this state. I think the minister for environment is being led on a merry chase here by a department—I really do. When we had a briefing the other night in this place on fisheries management, I could certainly sense tension between the department of fisheries and the environment department. What is going to happen here if this proposal takes place? We will have a marine parks act that will take over the management of fishing.

We have already seen tens of millions of dollars pillaged from the primary industries sector over the next four years of the budget period. What will happen? If we are going to lose the right to collect licence fees, permit fees and lease fees—if we are not going to have the Fisheries Management Act or the Aquaculture Act operating—we are going to have a pseudo marine parks act managing our fisheries. Right from the very start we saw advertisements put out by the department and the government saying, 'It's not about fishing,' and then you see a person standing there with a great big snapper, I believe. It is just outrageous.

I spoke at length on marine parks yesterday as well, and another issue is displaced effort. This government has shown it has no money. It is sucking about $6 billion currently into projects in Adelaide, so it has no money for displaced effort, and it has no money for the secondary areas connected to fishing—the holiday parks, the tourism people. What are all those people going to do when our regional areas are decimated and no-one from the city seats wants to go out there and go fishing because there is no point because they cannot fish.

In closing, I make the point that it is absolutely outrageous that the department—and they have admitted this—can just draw lines on a map to say where they want the sanctuary zones and then go to the people and say, 'We want you to help us alter the lines, but we have to have 25 per cent of the marine parks out of boundaries (44 per cent of the waters) to be sanctuary zones.' There is absolutely no science to this. It is about time we had some scientific debate, got on with the job and did this properly, instead of doing it in such an ad hoc manner. I commend the motion.

Mr PENGILLY: I thank members on this side of the house for their contribution.

Mrs GERAGHTY: If he speaks he closes the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I actually wanted to adjourn the debate.

Mr PENGILLY: I want to put the matter to the vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I was on my feet. I believe that I have the call on that.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I think, given that we were kind previously, it would pay to reciprocate. We agreed to allow the motion to come forward and, yes, the member jumped up and I ran across here while I was making an inquiry. So, I would ask, as a matter of courtesy, given that we showed courtesy in agreeing for the motion to come forward without any objection at all, that the courtesy be reciprocated.

Mr PENGILLY: I have a point of order on that. It is not my place to know where the Government Whip or the Opposition Whip is at any one time. The motion came forward; the member for Fisher actually allowed it to come forward. It has no different precedence. It is a motion on the floor of the house. Our members debated the matter and I believe that, as a point of order, I have the right to conclude my remarks as the mover of the motion and put the matter to the vote.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please bear with me for one minute while I speak to persons from both sides of the house.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can make the other point that I think I may have got something in the wrong order. The fact was that the minister was on his feet first and the member then stood up and I stood up. I think the confusion was—I take it the minister was not actually wanting to speak?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I was going to adjourn the debate.

Mrs GERAGHTY: You were going to adjourn the debate. Okay.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I did notice the minister on his feet. I also thought that he was going to speak, but he was going to adjourn the debate.

Mr PENGILLY: I understand where the member for Torrens is coming from, but can I just ask from you, through the Clerk of the house, for clarification of the process here, please?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Certainly. Thank you. After some considerable discussion with the clerks it would appear that I have made the mistake, so I am at fault here. When the member for Finniss stood the Minister for Mineral Resources Development also stood. However, perhaps because of the extraordinary charisma of the member for Finniss, I looked towards him first when, in fact, the equally charismatic Minister for Mineral Resources Development was also on his feet. So, in this instance I will have to plea mea culpa and I think we will have to adjourn the debate. My apologies to the member for Finniss, who has been most ill-used in this event by me.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge your deep and meaningful discussions with the clerks of the house and the fact that things went pear-shaped, and on that premise I would ask that the member for Torrens adjourn the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is very generous of you, thank you. The member for Torrens.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Thank you for your consideration.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.


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


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