HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-09-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARINE PARKS (PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 July 2010.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:11): The principal act, the Marine Parks Act, continues to cause considerable anxiety, particularly in those parts of the state represented by members on this side of the house. I think those anxieties are well founded in both the way the legislation was framed in the first place—notwithstanding that the opposition did support the legislation at the time—but also in the way that the government has managed the establishment of marine parks thus far.

There is considerable disquiet, particularly amongst the professional fishing industries along the coast, and I have grave fears that, when the zones within the outer boundaries that have been established for the marine parks are identified, there will be considerable angst amongst the recreational sector as well.

The establishment of marine parks in South Australia has been a very slow exercise. The Liberal Party when in government in the 1990s realised its obligation, stemming from international agreements signed by our federal government and agreements made by the various states with the federal government at the time, to establish a system of representative marine parks around the whole nation. South Australia has been cognisant of that reality for a long time. In fact, when we were in government way back in 1998 we started off by putting out a discussion paper, 'Our seas and coasts: a maritime and estuarine strategy for South Australia', and we released a comprehensive guide to marine protected areas in April 2000.

In 2002, the Liberal Party went to the election with the express desire to have the establishment of the marine parks processes completed by 2006. With the change of government that process was slowed down considerably, and I suggest that this was because the process was occurring with input from both the department responsible for fisheries management in South Australia (the primary industries department) and the department of environment.

It seems that since the change of government the whole of the process has been taken over by the department of environment, and the fishing sector—particularly the professional fishing sector, but both the professional and recreational sector—seem to have had much less say than what they would under a Liberal government. I think this is the reason that there has been the anxiety I referred to.

I am pretty certain that I was the shadow spokesperson on behalf of the Liberal opposition at the time when the then minister declared the outer boundaries of the marine parks. I think that was on 29 January of 2009, from memory. The declaration of the outer boundaries set in train a process which is set out in the act, giving a six-month window for a consultation process to occur. At the end of that time, the minister could amend those outer boundaries, or the names of the marine parks, but once that six months had expired, what we were left with became almost set in concrete and very difficult to change. The only way that could be changed would be by a resolution of both houses of the parliament—something which can be very difficult to achieve.

Members interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: It is noisy in here.

The Hon. P. Caica: I am listening to you, Mitch.

Mr WILLIAMS: It is very noisy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the member's words could be heard in comparative silence. Gentlemen at the back—it is like being in school again—I would just remind you that we are going to have quiet times now to listen to Mr Williams.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I appreciate it very much. I don't know whether it was cheering in the background or not, but it was very noisy in here.

It is my belief that that process was not undertaken in good faith. It is my belief that the then minister who announced the outer boundaries of the marine parks on 29 January 2009 thwarted the process, because there was considerable backlash occurring from a number of interest groups, from both the recreational and professional fishing sectors.

The minister very cleverly set up a number of advisory committees along the coast. Members of those committees did expect that they would have some input into what was going to occur with the outer boundaries. The minister, in setting up those committees, indicated in the first instance that they would report I think at the end of May—remembering that 29 July was the deadline date. As we approached the end of May, and in fact passed the end of May, it became obvious that the then minister had no intention of tabling or receiving reports from those committees, or indicating to the general public any intent as to whether he was going to amend any of the outer boundaries.

The community was caught out when the original outer boundaries encompassed something like 44 per cent of the state's coastal waters. As I said, there was a lot of angst, but the minister I think was very clever but demonstrated a lack of good faith to the community in the process that he then entered into. In fact, those committees that were established were run pretty well to the end of the six-month period at the end of 29 July, when the community was left with no opportunity to run a formal or informal protest movement against the establishment of those outer boundaries.

I think the minister failed to act in good faith and failed the processes that were established in the legislation if he was going to truly take on board the community's feelings and aspirations with regard to marine parks.

With respect to this process to date, I think that our experience has been that, certainly, the previous minister showed little regard for what the community's expectations were. That minister went off on his own agenda and decided that input from the community would be ignored and that, at the end of the six-month period, there was a very small reduction in the total area. About 42 per cent of the state's coastal waters have been incorporated into those outer boundaries.

We are now coming up to—I think it is a three-year process, or within three years—the stage where the management plans for those marine parks need to be created, established and put in place, and the various management zones within those marine parks need to be identified and established.

Again, I have little faith in the process that we are going through. I have little faith, from experience with the establishment of the outer boundaries, that the community's interests are going to be listened to, and particularly that the commercial fishing sectors are going to have the sort of input that they would enjoy.

The original legislation was amended by the opposition in the other place, amendments which finally became law and which established a system of compensation to commercial fishers where there was what we called a 'displaced effort'; that is, where sections of the coastal waters were cut off for the operation of their business there was to be a system of compensation. There was a belief from that sector that the regulations by which that compensation would be assessed would be established as the next part of the process and established before the zones within the marine parks were promulgated.

The professional fishermen who have been talking to the opposition seem to have little faith that that is going to occur. Again, they are working from their experience, and they feel that there is a lack of genuine consultation with them. They feel that they are not being listened to and that they will, once again, be ambushed through this process. In order, again, to ameliorate the concern of particularly the stakeholders, I guess, the government announced during the recent election campaign that, if they were returned to government, it would amend the way in which management plans were subjected to parliamentary oversight, and this bill seeks to do that.

Might I suggest that I am not necessarily enamoured with the changes that have been made, and I will come to that in a moment. It does not give any succour, I guess, to those concerns out there, particularly in the commercial sector. I think that the recreational fishers will be sorely disappointed as the marine park zones are declared and the management plans become evident, because the establishment of the initial zones and the initial management plans are not subject to parliamentary oversight, and the amendments that we have before us today do not seek to remedy that which I see as a serious flaw in this piece of legislation.

In my opinion, that has been a serious flaw since day one of this piece of legislation. What we are doing today is amending the way in which the parliament can oversee any subsequent amendments to the management plans or the zones within the outer boundaries. The government is seeking to move from a situation where the Environment, Resources and Development Standing Committee of the parliament has oversight of that process to a situation where the input of the parliament would be via the Subordinate Legislation Act, and the proclamation of a zone and a management plan would become a disallowable instrument, similarly to a regulation.

If the minister can answer a question when he sums up, he may save us going into committee because I really only have one question, and that is: if either house chooses to disallow a management plan or the declaration of zones, I take it that, just like a regulation, the power will only be to disallow the whole of what is before the parliament at that time and not to seek to amend it or disallow part of it—similar to the problem we have when we wish to move to disallow a regulation and we have to disallow the whole of it. There is no avenue for negotiation or avenue to disallow part—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: The question is: do we have to disallow the whole lot? That is about the only question I have. I think it is a flaw in what is put before us. The existing clause in the act, I think it is clause 15, will be deleted and replaced by new clause 15 establishing this new method, not that the existing part of the act fulfils what would otherwise be the desire of the parliament. The whole thing is very messy and I do not think we are improving it greatly, to be quite honest.

In summing up, the opposition will support this bill. It is only quite a small bill. I think a number of my colleagues are going to speak to it and probably express their displeasure at the way the process has occurred so far. We will support this at this stage but, in doing so, I express that I do not think that, even now, it is going to be ideal, and we have ongoing concerns about the way the process is continuing to happen. I am very confident that we will end up with a system of marine parks which mitigates against certainly the commercial fishers throughout this state in a significant way and will probably mitigate against recreational fishers as well.

I think the government has been of a mind to go way overboard with this. It is not about establishing a representative set of marine parks; it is about locking up substantial parts of our coastal waters, and that very greatly disappoints me, my colleagues and the constituents we represent.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (17:28): I support this amendment bill, but I do not support the process that has gone on as far as consultation goes in both establishing the outer boundaries and what the process may be for establishing the inner boundaries. Former minister Weatherill certainly gave his commitment to the people—both amateur and professional fishermen, and other people who had a great interest in this issue—but one of the things that really concerned them was that, if there were to be changes made in the future to what could happen within those boundaries, it was simply a matter of perhaps sending those changes to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee and that committee making a recommendation to the minister of the day and he being able to implement those changes.

I think the community was very strong about the fact that they wanted a much better form of scrutiny so that it had to be referred to parliament rather than to just a committee and the minister. So, I certainly support the amendment in this bill, but I do not necessarily support the process that has happened to date.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:29): As indicated by our lead speaker, the opposition will support this bill but, for the life of me, I do not know how many times I have got up in this place and talked about this marine parks debacle. Anything that started eight years ago and is still going with no result, you would seriously have to wonder about the agenda of the whole thing. Let me say that in my own electorate and the wider electorate, as was evidenced when I was in Port Lincoln a couple of weeks ago, this whole thing is causing enormous distress. It is not being handled well. It is a major concern—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: You can have your go in a minute, mate.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: You ought to come back in your next life as a human bonobo, mate!

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Watch last night's Foreign Correspondent. I have two LAG groups in my electorate, one operating principally at Victor Harbor and one operating on Kangaroo Island. The chair of the LAG group in Victor Harbor is relatively comfortable where that is going, but not overly comfortable. The chair on the island is highly distressed. He happens to be a fellow called Andy Gilfillan who is the son of a former legislative councillor in this place, the Hon. Ian Gilfillan. He has got to the stage where he is not consulted on what goes on the agendas for these LAG group meetings. He is not told what is going in there. He is not asked to have input into what is going in there. He is now finding that he is calling meetings of the LAG groups, or some of them, because there are a few people on there who do not want to participate, to talk about where they want to go with it.

If this is the way that the government wants to operate on this, it is going to fall over, it is never going to work. By and large, there has always been widespread support for the introduction of the marine park system in the state waters of South Australia. Given that it was introduced by the former Liberal government—and you do not want to forget that—it has been a total cock-up since the Rann Labor government decided to pick up on it and run.

What is happening now, in my view, given the recent communication I have had from residents from the north coast of Kangaroo Island who are beside themselves with rage and hostility towards the whole process instead of going along with it, is that they are being told by some bloody-minded Sir Humphrey in the natural resource system that they will not be able to do anything out there shortly. They will not be able to go fishing. These are just recreational people.

If this is what the Rann government and the minister want, you had better tell us, because there is going to be World War IV out there over this before it is all finished. I for one am wondering where it is all going to end up.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I do not know whether the member for Newland has much sea around his electorate. He might have to look for a coastal electorate in the future. However, I am sure that he loves the water. Why, for the life of me, do we have to have distressed fishermen, both professional and recreational, who have absolutely no idea where this is going to end up?

One professional fisherman who operates quite widely out of Victor Harbor spoke to me the other day. Once again, he was absolutely beside himself. He used to run two or three boats. He is back to one boat. He wanted to set his sons up in the fishing industry. They did that. They are now back to one. He is a man around 60 years old who is looking towards retirement. His sons have said, 'We don't want to take part in this. There is no certainty in this industry, why would we want to do it?' He has spent his working life on the sea developing an industry.

The same thing applies to rock lobster fishermen on Kangaroo Island, people like the Walden family. No-one has ever done anything for Graham Walden. He got a job as a Telecom technician; did wonderfully well. He started off by buying a cray boat, an old cutter. He worked up to buy a fast boat and then another fast boat for his son. They are now that far behind the eight ball that they cannot see daylight, and it is totally and absolutely unfair.

As I said in another speech yesterday, we used to have a thing in Australia called a fair go. Well, it does not seem to operate anymore. This place has been taken over, South Australia particularly, by a mob of bloody-minded bureaucrats who are running their own agenda. I cannot see that the minister would agree with them, but they are running the show, they are doing all sorts of things that are not in the best interests of the future of South Australia. We have a fishing industry in South Australia to be proud of.

The latest debacle with the northern and the southern zone rock lobster fisheries is an example of where the bureaucrats are running right over the top of the minister for fisheries, or primary industries. You talk to the people who catch the fish, you talk to the people who work on the sea, and they will tell you what is going on, but these bureaucrats do not seem to want to listen to those who are actually at the coal front and who know what is going on, who know what the future holds and can actually tell you how it works.

We will support the amendment but when is this nonsense going to end? I heard the member for Mount Gambier talk about the zones; that is another debacle. We have the outer boundaries but for the life of us no-one can find out where these inner zones are. It is simply not good enough. This government has had eight years to sort this mess out and good, honest, hardworking South Australians, acting in the best interests of the state, cannot get answers because this is all hidden away in some office block in Adelaide, hidden away from the people who want to get out there and earn a living, or hidden away from the recreational fishers who want to get out there and enjoy themselves.

I know that the minister himself is a keen fisherman, and there are other ministers in the government who are keen fishermen. When you retire, or get retired, or whatever happens, you might find it a bit difficult to get out there. The irony of this is that we have marine parks foreshadowed all around South Australia, but where we have a million and a half people in the metropolitan area we have no marine park.

The area which gets the most pressure from human habitation and probably has more going into the sea, whether by leaching, floodwater or anything else, has no marine park. Why do you think that is? It is a pretty simple answer. The answer is that the government does not want to offend the people who put it into power because they might turn and they might vote for the member for Colton, or the member for Bright, or the member for anywhere else. That is the reason they are not doing it. So, we now have, I think, about 100 kilometres of coastal water around the metropolitan area that has no park.

If this had been half smart you actually would have started the marine park off the City of Adelaide and its surrounds; you would have started there and done something about it. I can recall, in the sixties, flying up to boarding school—that gives my age away a bit—and seeing the seagrass nearly up to the beach in Adelaide. Now you fly out and there are these great expanses of white sand and patches of white sand further out. This is where it has all gone totally pear-shaped.

I find it an impossible situation to tell my constituents with any surety what is going to happen because I do not know. I do not even know whether the minister knows what is going to happen. I do not know whether he has briefings on the inner zones; he may well have, I do not know. We need to have more transparency in there because what is going to happen in due course is that all this overprotection and shutting down the fishing industry wherever possible, not telling anyone what is going on, is all going to come back and bite future governments, possibly of both persuasions, on the backside, big time.

Those who are sitting in the offices making the decisions at the moment will get old and grumpy and go, but what is happening is that at the moment they are creating an angst in South Australia, particularly in regional and rural South Australia, that is causing people to be more and more distressed. It is simply not good enough.

You are a fine fellow, minister, but I ask you to get a hold of this and sort it out once and for all and bring some transparency back into it. I beg of you to do that so that people have some surety, and they are not told by some sniffling little bureaucrat that in the future they will not be able to go there, because that is wrong. That is not what I am in this place for, and I am sure it is not what the other members in the chamber here today are for and I am sure it is not what you are about. I say that with sincerity: that is not what we are here for.

As long as I can draw breath in here I will fight for the little people and the business people who want to go and earn export income for their families and everyone else. So, in supporting the bill, I express my indignation and concern over what is not happening with this marine parks process and I hope that it can be ripped into gear.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:40): There might be some in this chamber who think that the contribution of the member for Finniss was somewhat extreme, but I recognise the fact that he has actually held concerns for a long time. In the 4½ years that I have been a member of this parliament, the member for Finniss was the first person that I can recollect within our party room who really started to raise the alarm bells. I think it initially related to the fact that when the first marine park boundary was provisionally declared it related to an area that he represents and there was some duplication involved in that and a lot of concern from that local community. So, his contribution today contained concerns that he has held for a long time, and I respect that enormously.

I also recognise that governments of all persuasions need to ensure they put regulations in place to ensure that there will be a fishing industry existing, be it for recreational or professional people, going into the future. That is why there is a variety of regulations in force to control seasons and to ensure that the catch effort is controlled so that there is actually going to be stock out there in the long term.

I come from Goyder, and I am very proud to represent that area. It has something like 800 kilometres of coastline. For me, fishing is a very important industry, not only for the charter operators and the long-term effort that has been done on professional fishing in that area but also for recreational fishing and the tourism industry that it has brought. Thousands and thousands of people would travel to Yorke Peninsula every week to visit that area, to go out to some of the great fishing spots, to use one of probably 20 per cent of the state's boat ramps that exist in that area, because it is nice and close to a metropolitan area where the majority of fishers are, and it is accessible, they are upgrading the ramps, and there is a reasonable chance that you are going to have a decent catch.

I understand also that the recreational fishing lobby is a fairly strong one, having I think—and the minister might correct me on this—approximately 250,000 recreational fishers in the state and 75,000 or 78,000 boats that are registered. Something like that.

The Hon. P. Caica: Lots.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, that is close enough, I think. It is an enormous amount. Any debate that we contribute in here is based upon the concerns of people that have spoken to us and the need to ensure that we get it right. So, yes, the local advisory committees—and I have three that operate within my area, I think—have been given a very difficult role to ensure that they are able to consult with the local community, the visitors to the area and the professional fishers to get the boundaries right and to feed back the information through to the minister and the committee who will work on this.

It is appropriate that the parliament actually have some opportunity to regulate this, and that is why the bill is appropriate. My understanding is that it meets a commitment given by the government as part of the election process to do so. This is a step forward, but it recognises that the past effort has been very concerning. My recollection of the debate that occurred in this chamber on the original marine parks bill is that compensation is available to professional fishers who are displaced. My understanding also is that no fund has been created from a levy attached to any recreational or professional fisher to fund that compensatory payment. However, how do you actually make compensation to recreational fishers who have that loss of fishing effort?

The minister understands as much as I do that recreational and professional fishers are very protective of their spots, and that is just it. You have to be a very good friend of somebody to get an identification of where a spot is that has any chance of getting a fish off it, and if these spots are in areas that are identified where a fishing effort is to be removed, how is that to be managed without putting such an impost upon those people that they will just scream out loud? They will come to your office, they will come to my office, they will come to the member for Finniss's office, and they will continually complain about what they see as another government regulation making it impossible for them to do what they love.

There is no doubt we all love fishing. I, sadly, only get to make the effort about four or five days per year. I know the minister barely does it a fraction of what he would like to do also, but we need to ensure that we have an opportunity there, because fishing has been a strong part of South Australia's history. The fishmonger was a person that I used to visit as a young lad. I remember going down to Edithburgh and you would visit the local fish shop and buy whiting, tommies, snook and even leather jackets, which are quite nice when fresh.

The Hon. P. Caica: They are beautiful.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Exactly. So we need to ensure that effort is available to people, so I urge the minister to do all he can to ensure that the process is one that meets the expectations of the South Australian community. He is an honest and intelligent man. I know he will do his best, but it is important that we on this side of the chamber have the opportunity to express some of the frustrations of constituents as part of any debate opportunity. The member for Finniss expresses it very well when he relays the stories he has been told in his area, and I respect that enormously because it is the responsibility of all of us, equally, to stand up and talk about what is important to our people.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:45): I, too, rise to support the marine parks amendment bill. As we have already heard from previous speakers, the former Liberal government began the work to establish marine parks in South Australia in the mid-1990s. We are as an opposition supportive of the concept. In January 2009, 19 marine parks were declared, covering 44 per cent of the state's waters. This was negotiated down to 42 per cent of the state's waters.

Of particular interest to me, representing the electorate of Flinders in this house, is that 11 of these parks are adjacent to Eyre Peninsula, the coastline of the EP and the West Coast, and probably also adjacent to the Speaker's electorate. As has already been mentioned, it is somewhat significant that not one marine park lies adjacent to the coastline off the metropolitan area of Adelaide, and I have heard no good reason yet as to why that is the case.

Port Lincoln, of course, is the provincial centre of my electorate of Flinders, and it is the jewel in the crown of South Australia's seafood industry and, indeed, most likely the South Australian rural seafood sector as a whole. In fact, we have begun a marketing push and selling seafood out of the West Coast under the brand name the Australian Seafood Frontier. It is worth in my electorate in excess of $400 million as an industry, comparable almost with the agricultural sector in the electorate of Flinders. It is an incredibly important regional industry in my electorate and one which not cannot be allowed to suffer as a result of the implementation of poor management for marine parks.

The fishing industry remains concerned about the implementation of the no-take zones and the impact that will have on their businesses. I am actually very supportive of the various seafood industries and of ensuring that they operate in a sustainable way. It is clear to me that the seafood industry as a whole is all too aware of the need to operate in a sustainable fashion, and collectively they are an eminently responsible industry and they have operated sustainably. Through a combination of licences, quotas, regulated fishing days and general industry support for the way they regulate themselves, they have achieved sustainability. Any legislation that potentially impacts adversely on the viability of the seafood industry should obviously be scrutinised in this place.

In saying that, I am supportive of this parliament providing that oversight of the implementation of management plans that provide certainty to the seafood industry. I share the concerns of the seafood industry with respect to a reduction in its access to fishing in large sections of marine parks. I think we run a very real risk here of killing the goose.

Under section 21 of the act, there is in place the opportunity to provide compensation for displaced effort, and I would suggest to the minister that he consider this section very carefully because there are meetings in this town during this very week amongst the industry, discussing how they can best argue the case for compensation. I am sure the minister is aware of that. Unfortunately, the fishing industry as a whole has very low confidence in the process as it is progressing thus far.

So, I believe operators deserve certainty with respect to the ongoing viability of their businesses, and at present there is some level of uncertainty as a result of this legislation, which has also caused concern amongst key stakeholders.

Also mentioned here today by previous speakers are recreational fishers, and I would add to that the tourism industry, which is very important around coastal South Australia—on Kangaroo Island, on both the peninsulas and in the South-East. I think a large part of the local tourist economy revolves around summer tourism and recreational fishers—people who come to town for a fishing holiday and contribute to the local economy. There are grave fears in these local communities, these small communities, about the impact that no-take zones will have on the tourism component of their regional economy.

As always, consultation is the key to delivering good outcomes for important regional industries such as the seafood industry, such as the tourism industry, and such as the recreational fishing industry. It must also be tempered by good outcomes for the marine environment. So I do support the bill, but I would urge the minister to consider carefully the remainder of the consultation period.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (17:51): Many people speak about the vested interests of those who participate in an industry or a recreational activity. I am going to speak about the marine life. When, minister, the first park was proposed under this legislation—there was a bit of a trial period for Encounter Bay and Kangaroo Island—it presented a proposal which was a debacle. I think that has been acknowledged, not just on a non-consultation basis but also on the basis of a whole lot of proposals which were just completely untenable.

I asked three questions during consultations on that park. I asked whether, if there were a displacement from one area into areas that were not national park, any study had been done and data collected to identify that; and, if so, could we have a look at it. And it was quite clear that nothing had been done.

Secondly, there was an overlap between what were natural resource management proposed plans at that stage for the jurisdiction that they would cover, three miles out from the coast, and the proposed marine park—in that case, Encounter Bay. I asked who was to have the pre-eminence of the supervision where there was an overlap in the jurisdiction, but there was no answer.

I raised the fact that there was a very important marine-significant area north of North Cape in the ocean which did not appear in any of the proposed area. It concerned me because there has been clear evidence in the material produced that work had been done to try to identify important breeding grounds, areas of significance, some of which are already well known and protected under the fishing legislation in South Australia, and it had not even come onto the program at all. These are fundamental matters. In addition, I asked how many people were proposed to actually supervise this park, to which the answer was, 'Two.'

So, when we came to the new set of boundaries I wrote to the then minister to inquire about the question of jurisdiction, because a new park had a boundary between the bottom end of Yorke Peninsula and the north coast of Kangaroo Island, and again we had the three-mile jurisdiction of the natural resources management board. I wrote to the then minister and asked for some information as to, firstly, the data that had been used to rely upon the outer boundary of one of the proposed new parks; and, secondly, how that was going to work in with the boundaries of the natural resources management board jurisdiction, which also had a responsibility to protect the marine life, provide education, resources, manage the pests, and so on.

I got an answer back with reference to a pamphlet. I wrote again to the minister, but I still have not had an answer. We have a new minister; I hope I will get an answer this time.

The Hon. P. Caica: Have you written to me?

Ms CHAPMAN: I think a further copy has gone from my office since the election to say that I want an answer, because I was prompted again by some of the other people on the north coast of Kangaroo Island who had some other ancillary concerns; I thought that I still had not had an answer from that minister. So I will be very pleased to get an answer on this point, because here we are, two years into the debate on this issue and still we have no resolution over a fundamental jurisdictional point. I want to see the data involving the apparent ecosystems that need to be protected within which the boundaries have been ultimately drawn. I want to have some understanding of the jurisdiction that is there. I want to have at least a reference to a site on a website or somewhere which will show me the data of what needs to be particularly protected and what does not.

In due course, when these zones, which are currently a sort of mirage in the water, are identified, I want to have access to the data that will tell me the basis upon which those zones are drawn. I think that is pretty basic, and as a member of this parliament, who under this bill is going to have some scrutiny over this matter, I want access to that information. I am not going to be kept in the dark. I am not going to be like some poor little fish in the ocean who does not get some information sufficient to make an informed decision. I want to make sure that that is provided. So minister, I think you have got the message.

The Hon. P. Caica: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: I look forward to receiving it.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:55): I rise as shadow fisheries minister in support of the Marine Parks (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment Bill 2010, but I also note the concerns of my colleagues on this side of the house and I want to echo their concerns. This Labor government—and they have acknowledged it—has a policy of announce and defend: not consult and work through something that the community wants, or that will work with the community. It is announce and defend, and this is the problem with the marine parks legislation.

There are also some members of the community who want 30 per cent no take zones. My concern from the little bit of information that I have managed to access on this issue is that some of the science, or so-called science, used to work out no take and habitat zones is over 10 years old—it is about 11 years old. In a lot of cases, I am gathering from information fishermen give to me, that sometimes it seems like these people pick a spot on a map and say, 'Well, we will make that a no take zone,' and it has no real reference to whether it should be an area that should be a no take zone or a habitat zone.

This is causing major angst amongst fishermen, and I must say that members of the commercial fishing sector and the recreational fishing sector remain absolutely concerned that the Department of Natural Resources (formerly the department of environment and heritage) has an agenda which is balanced in favour of reducing their access to existing fishing rights by making large sections of the marine parks no take zones. This is the major concern of the fishery.

We have already heard from the member for Flinders, where the fishing industry in his area contributes almost as much as the agriculture industry. It is a major industry over on the West Coast and near Port Lincoln, which I think is the premier port for fishing in the country—and they absolutely do it well.

If you look at the prawn fishery and how that is managed, I believe they can go out for 50 nights. They manage that well; they work together. I seek leave to conclude my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


At 17:59 the house adjourned until Thursday 16 September 2010 at 10:30.


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