HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-09-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (10:31): The day has arrived. I do not know how else to describe it, other than the fact that after months, and indeed years, of discussions—

The SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, to be effective you need to move that the bill be now read a second time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The SPEAKER: You now speak to it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am grateful for the invitation and the opportunity to do so. I think all of us in this chamber have had the opportunity to speak to people about marine parks and the sanctuary zones that are attached to them, the habitat protection zones and the opportunities for recreational and professional fishers, as well as the community at large, to make use of what is a wonderful part of South Australia's environment, its marine habitat.

I am like probably hundreds of people who have continually talked to people around their communities across the wider part of South Australia about whether they support marine parks and, overwhelmingly, the feedback to me is that they do. If they have any concerns, it is fair to say that a lot have been put about where we can strike some form of balance between an environmental vision and what the economic reality is for communities.

There are many people in the gallery today, Mr Speaker. All those people have come here voluntarily to be in a position to hear—

The SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, it is highly disorderly to make reference to the gallery.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There are people who have travelled to be able to witness the debate that is occurring, because they want to hear people speak and they want to know their positions. They want to ensure that, in the fullness of time, when the result of this is known, they will know who to look at and who to talk to.

I have tried to be a person who considers the merits of legislation. I have supported marine parks, and I remember in 2007, when the debate about them first occurred in the House of Assembly, it was part of an environmental vision that the Liberal Party and government had had from the late 1990s. The legislation is before us, it has come through. We did not have any direct say on the outer boundaries of the 19 marine parks that were established. We have had select committees in the upper house that looked at the issues attached to that, and, as I understand it, that report was not listened to. Certainly it is not reflected in any of the proclamations of the sanctuary zones that were announced.

It is here that we find ourselves today, with the opportunity to debate a bill that has passed the upper house, the other place; a bill that was voted 10 to 9, a bill that gave the opportunity for all sides of the argument to be put, a bill that gave people the opportunity to be listened to, and I am proud that the Hon. Michelle Lensink from the other place did this. She did it not from a political opportunism reason; she did it because of the people that she had spoken to, the people from the wide cross-section of the community she had spoken to, where seemingly a coalition has come together of recreational fishers, professional fishers and community at large for government, be it opposition, government or Independent members, to listen to the argument they put.

There was a rally out the front of this building earlier this morning, and there were hundreds of people there who are passionate about it. They listened to a variety of speakers. They spoke themselves; it was not only politicians who stood up there and espoused the wisdom that they hold it to be, but it was real people whose lives are to be impacted by the introduction of 84 sanctuary zones and the real desire they have for changes to occur to 12 of those. That is what we are looking at. We are looking for the sanctuary zones in those 12 areas to become habitat protection zones. It still allows activities to occur and it still allows communities to have a vibrant economic future.

The opposition will not have a lot of speakers here today. All of us could stand up. We all have a particular position on this, and a very strong one, in supporting the Hon. Michelle Lensink's bill, but we want to hear from government and we want to hear from Independent members of the government also, because in the reality of the numbers world you are the people who control this.

I was lucky enough to be invited to a meeting held two weeks before the election at Port Wakefield, and the member for Frome, who has now been returned as a minister of the Crown, as the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, was there also. He had the opportunity to watch a video about the impact of marine parks across wider Australia and he had the opportunity to put some words on the record too.

My reflection of those words is that the minister spoke in support of that community and wanted to ensure that the right balance was struck between an environmental vision and what a community needs for its future. I know that the minister intends to speak. I hope that the Minister for Investment and Trade intends to also put his position formally on the record, because people who are listening today, physically seeing it or will read the Hansard about it will want to know what those people's positions truly are.

In the early part of the marine parks debate—and this to me is a great example of poor performance when it comes to community engagement and making a community aware of what an intention is—when marine parks were first announced, as a local member I had a telephone call from a visitor to my electorate, who said to me, 'Can I still walk on the beach?' When you have that sort of question posed to you, an argument is lost. I said to that person, 'Yes, you can still do that. There will be a range of controls put in place in different areas.'

Minister Caica at that stage, I think, was the person who was going to hopefully listen to a sound argument on it. The community was engaged and the local advisory groups were appointed, based on nominations that were submitted. I know I have four of the 19 marine parks in my electorate. I know the majority of those people who are in the LAG group; they are good people. They discussed it seriously, looked at the 14 key scientific areas and environmental management areas that had to be addressed as part of this, and they came to not always a unanimous position, but a majority position, on what size these different zones should be.

It was with great frustration that seemingly the ability to influence that decision was taken away from them, was put in a higher level meeting opportunity, and then these radical decisions came out that have just gutted people. I think that is the only way to say it. There are people who will probably listen to this debate whom I know have worked hours and hours for months on this, because they are passionate about what they believe in. They are not people who normally fight, kick and scream; they are people who just want to do their work, raise their families and be part of their communities, but they are fearful that their future is being taken away.

It is not until we in this place have a chance to recognise that, and a chance to legislatively create some changes that will give those people a future, that I can look them honestly in the face. It is not about what we want to do; it is about what the community needs. Government is clearly here to make decisions—yes, I understand that—but also to reflect what the people's needs are. I have to say that in this example we have reached a situation where the people's needs are not being met.

That is a sad indictment upon a government process that just cannot react to people; instead of making decisions it just decides what to do. It consults after the fact, it draws lines on a map at a first meeting of the LAG group and says, 'This is what you're going to meet.' That is not good enough.

Mr Pengilly: Lies.

Mr GRIFFITHS: So, today is our last chance. It is a chance for those who are interested in it and those who hold the balance in it—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Finniss will rise and immediately apologise for the interjection he made.

Mr PENGILLY: I withdraw and apologise, sir.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Goyder.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Today is an opportunity for those who truly can make a difference here to actually show, by their hearts, their hands and their vote, who they are going to support. We will not speak for a long time. The argument has been put passionately. All those who need to be involved in this have been involved for a long time and we have had a lot of decisions put; but, please, when you stand up to vote, consider the needs of all South Australians and the needs of regions.

Government's own research indicates that 124 full-time equivalent jobs are going to be lost, and $12.4 million will be lost in regional communities. At a time of such exceptionally high unemployment in regional communities and so many communities struggling for a vibrant economic future, we cannot afford to do this. It cannot happen because, if it does happen, it is an absolute disgrace. It is a disgrace to the way in which this parliament should act, and it is a disgrace to the responsibility that we have to all South Australians.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for the Public Sector) (10:40): I rise on behalf of the government to indicate that we will be opposing this bill. The bill would destroy the marine parks network, which has been established—

Mr Marshall: What absolute rubbish!

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is called to order.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —which has been established—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Heysen is called to order.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —on the best available science and involved in one of the most extensive consultation periods ever undertaken in this state. The bill proposes to remove 12—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Heysen is warned for the first time.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —of the 83 sanctuary zones, including five of the seven largest zones. This would reduce the total area of the state's waters given the highest level of protection from 6 per cent to 4 per cent. In addition, the bill proposes that there be rolling reviews of marine parks management plans to be conducted every two years. This would be a huge and unnecessary administrative burden and create uncertainty for all users of our marine environment.

South Australians support marine parks with sanctuary zones. A recent poll conducted by UMR-ReachTEL polling from Thursday 11 September to Sunday 14 September 2014 surveyed 2,007 South Australian residents on the issue of marine park sanctuaries. Seventy-five per cent of respondents thought marine sanctuaries were a good idea compared with just 13 per cent who did not, and 66 per cent of fishers said they—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is called to order.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —also felt that marine sanctuaries were a good idea, compared with 25 per cent who did not.

Mr Marshall: We're all for marine parks.

The SPEAKER: The leader is warned for the first time.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: South Australia's marine parks have been developed based on the best local, national and international science and were developed with the input of some of our state's most respected marine scientists. The scientific working group comprised 12 independent highly regarded scientists who have expertise in a range of scientific fields, such as marine ecology, marine biology and biological oceanography.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In addition, South Australia's 19 marine parks have—

The SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is called to order.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —been established following an unprecedented consultation process. In fact, 83 per cent—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is warned for the first time.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —of the final sanctuary zones were derived from local advisory group advice. Where local advisory group advice was not applied, it was because the advice would result in an outcome—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader is warned for the second time. If he moves his lips out of order again, he will be leaving the chamber.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Where local advisory group advice was not applied, it was because the advice would result in an outcome that did not meet the basic requirements of the Marine Parks Act or the 14 design principles for the parks.

The government was committed to consulting widely because we understand that our native marine species and their marine habitats belong to all South Australians, both present and future. More than 8,600 written submissions were received during the final round of community consultation and, as a result, more than 50 amendments were made to the draft zones. Of particular note is that 85 per cent of respondents supported increasing the number or size of sanctuary zones to strengthen conservation outcomes. As a result of the consultation process, the marine parks boundaries were revised to deliver the best outcomes that balance the environmental benefit with the impact on people and industries who use the marine environment, like commercial and recreational fishers.

Economic impact assessments conducted in August 2012 estimated that the total impact on commercial fishing would be 124 direct and indirect jobs. Of course, this is a number that we have heard again and again by those who oppose our marine parks network. What we have not heard from those using these figures is that these assessments were based on the original management plans and did not take into account over 50 amendments made to the draft zoning in response to comments received from the public.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is called to order. The member for Mount Gambier is called to order.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In August of this year, the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources commissioned EconSearch to revise its marine park impact estimates. These updated estimates were able to take into account the final marine park management plans. This report identified a significant reduction in the projected impact, with a reduction of 80 direct or indirect jobs projected.

Of course, neither of these assessments has been able to take into account the approximately $18 million spent by the government in the voluntary buyout process nor the potential but unquantified long-term benefit that we expect the marine parks network to have. This long-term benefit has been experienced in places like New Zealand and New South Wales, where marine parks networks with sanctuary zones have created economic activity and jobs. We know from these experiences that the tourism sector, which employs 30,000 South Australians, stands to benefit significantly from sanctuary zones. We know that commercial fishers will benefit from the ability to brand their produce—

Mr Pederick: The tourists come to fish.

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We know that commercial fishers will benefit from the ability to brand their produce as coming from a well-managed fishery with a marine parks network.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: However, what is clear from ongoing public debate is there continues to be—

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is called to order.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: —concern within the community regarding the possible impact on our marine parks network. To provide reassurance to regional communities who continue to have concerns relating to the implementation of the sanctuary zones, the government has a number of new measures it will implement if the bill is defeated. First, the government will complete formal regional assessment statement processes for Port Wakefield, Ceduna and Kangaroo Island by 1 October 2015.

The Hon. P. Caica: The sky hasn't caved in.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The government will also commence a program—

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton is called to order.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The government will also commence a program for the review of the marine park management plans, pursuant to section 14(2) of the Marine Parks Act 2007, within this term of government. Commercial fishers have asked the government for these regulations to help provide the industry certainty regarding the process for compensation and compulsory acquisition under the Marine Parks Act 2007.

Once the debate on the amendment bill is completed, draft marine parks statutory authorisation compensation regulations 2014 will be released for targeted public consultation. The government hopes that the implementation of these measures will help to ensure South Australia's marine parks program continues to deliver environmental, economic and social benefits for all South Australians. It is an oldie but a goodie: we do not inherit the earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I warn the deputy leader for the first time.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Our marine parks network will help to ensure we return a healthy and prosperous earth to future generations.

Mr Pederick: We've already got the best management in the world.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I urge all members to oppose this bill in its entirety.

The SPEAKER: I warn the member for Hammond.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (10:48): In the absence of anyone standing, I will—

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton, who has already been called to order but nevertheless gets the call.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am fully aware of that, sir, and I promise not to digress again. I oppose this bill, as you would expect. The bill ignores years of proper community consultation—probably the most consulted bill in the history of this parliament. It started back when the member for Davenport, the then environment minister issued a discussion paper, under the auspices of the then premier Rob Kerin, saying that they would introduce marine parks, and within those would be sanctuary zones. My, how that position has changed.

This bill will jeopardise some of our state's most iconic sites and unique marine life. This bill has no scientific basis, as the experts themselves have expressed. As reported on 23 August in The Advertiser, it appears that the proposed amendments have not undergone any community or scientific consultation and they are not supported by any scientific rationale or justification. South Australia's 19 marine parks cover about 44 per cent of the state's waters.

We have also ensured that recreational fishing will be largely unaffected, and that was a deliberate approach. Six per cent, or roughly 3,600 square kilometres, has been assigned the highest level of protection. It has been, as I said, over 10 years in the planning, and the member for Davenport was there at its birth.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes; your position has changed because it suits you. It was right before; it's not now. Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton will be seated. It is not in order to refer to the opposition in the second person, because under parliamentary convention it would be taken that the member for Colton is referring to me, and I am sure he is not; so I warn him for the first time.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Mr Speaker, I would never, ever say anything adverse about you. Mr Speaker, the sanctuary zones, the areas this bill is attempting to change, are critical to the marine parks network. They are much more than no fishing areas. They have been established because the expert advice is that they are integral to protecting our native marine species and their marine habitats.

It is very important to point out what the opposition ignores, when they argue that marine parks should be designed based on threats and damage that arise, because it completely misses the point, because by then it might be too late. We cannot afford the opposition's wait until it is broken to fix it approach. It would put our environment at risk and is completely at odds with the overwhelming scientific evidence available on marine parks. Recently, Valerie Taylor, a prominent shark expert and environmentalist, heard about the opposition bill. She expressed her dismay. In her own words she said:

South Australia has so much to offer underwater—the range of biodiversity is just incredible.

The opposition wants to undermine Sanctuary Zones—

which they once supported—

and destroy it all.

Once they are gone we will never get them back—South Australia will just have a dead ocean, and that would be a great loss.

As I said before, the defined sanctuary zones are critical to the marine parks network. They play an integral role in ensuring against the emerging impacts of climate change. They are also, contrary to the opinion of many, good for fishing and fishing tourism. They underpin the health of the sea and protect the places where fish breed and grow. It seems to me to be almost criminally negligent, if you like, that—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, you'll be able to be—sorry, sir, it's not you, of course. The opposition will be able to justify how it is that $18 million of taxpayers' funds can be spent in buying back from willing sellers those areas that are designated and to be designated sanctuary zones. This bill, if it proceeds, will allow fishing in those 12 targeted zones, the majority of which was encompassed by the buyback. It will affect 29 per cent of total waters, given this highest level of protection. Also, the government's commitment throughout this process has been to have less than 5 per cent displacement, and we have come in at 1.7 per cent displacement. This bill does not provide for genuine conservation outcomes, nor is it economically sound.

The opposition talk about their support for marine parks. If we go back: when the Bannon government was tossed out, back in 1993, there were, I think, 70,000 hectares of land-based protection under the wilderness act given at that time. How much more did we get during the next nine years of Liberal government? Not one square metre—not one square metre, such is their commitment to the environment. What have we got today? Two million, I think, or thereabouts, hectares of land under this highest level of protection. That is the commitment that this party gives to our environment, a commitment that is supported by the majority of the people of South Australia. What do you give? You give nothing. You take away.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Sir, not you, sir, the opposition takes away. People ask, 'Where are the threats?' Well, go and look in the mirror. The threat is us as a species. The precautionary principle is aimed at making sure that area that is—and we will not say completely pristine—in the best—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is warned for the second and final time.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —possible condition will remain in that condition for future generations to enjoy. It is said that 84 per cent, or thereabouts, of species found in our temperate waters are unique to these waters along South Australia. They also say that 90 per cent of the future advances in life sciences are going to be found from natural products and resources.

I can see great opportunity for South Australia in the area of biosciences with the protection of these waters, and it is a no-brainer. Sir, I commend, if you like—if that is the right word—or urge the house to defeat this bill, and emphatically defeat it.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (10:54): The government strongly opposes this bill and, on a very personal note coming from a family of keen recreational anglers, I also strongly oppose this bill. It has purely been designed to address the economic concerns of a select few individuals from the commercial fisheries industries choosing to completely ignore the wider economic and environmental benefits of marine parks for the entire state. Our state's marine environment is an asset that belongs to all South Australians today and into the future, and it astounds me that the opposition is willing to risk this vital asset just to score a few political points in the short term—pure opportunism.

Mr Speirs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Bright is called to order.

Mr HUGHES: That is just simply irresponsible. Marine parks present a wealth of opportunities for our state.

Mr Pengilly: That's the first speech you've made since you got here, Eddie.

Mr HUGHES: Well, that's not actually true. They complement our existing measures to manage our fisheries and boost our state's reputation as a source of clean healthy seafood. The parks are designed to build additional resistance and resilience for fish stocks, protect fragile and critical habitats, and conserve the wealth of marine biodiversity in this state.

They will also be an important source of tourism activity and, importantly, they will ensure that our oceans are protected for current and future generations, especially given the massive significant global impacts that are occurring at the moment. There is no denying that marine parks and the current sanctuary zones have wide support in Whyalla.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Deputy leader! Would the member for Giles be seated. The deputy leader is highly disorderly. I allowed her to get away with much yesterday in question time. If the deputy leader moves her lips out of order at any time for the rest of the day she will be leaving the chamber forthwith. Member for Giles.

Mr HUGHES: The initial economic impact assessments conducted by EconSearch were based on draft zoning back in August 2012. According to the calculations by—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Finniss now has his second and final warning.

Mr HUGHES: According to the calculations by SARDI, the South Australian Research and Development Institute, the total estimated impact on commercial fishing from the 83 sanctuary zones is 1.7 per cent of the gross value of production. This is significantly less than the maximum 5 per cent impact guaranteed by the government at the outset of the program. In addition, the government has introduced the voluntary buyback program to re-purchase licences and quota entitlements to further offset the economic impact.

The voluntary buyback program has now been completed by five of the six fisheries involved. In August 2014, we commissioned EconSearch to revise its marine park assessments given the changes that were introduced. The purpose was to take into account the revised zones in the final marine park management plans as well as the impact of the voluntary catch effort reduction program.

The revised estimates demonstrate just how much the government listened to and acted on the feedback received. Initially the impact on gross state product was estimated to be $12.6 million of gross state product, representing 0.02 per cent of gross state product. The figure was revised down to approximately $8.2 million, which represents 0.01 per cent of gross state product. Look at the impact of the Warburton report at the moment on the renewable energy providers in this state: it dwarfs the impact of what is being proposed here.

The total impact on employment, including commercial fishing; jobs downstream, such as processing and transport; and flow-on jobs, was revised from 124, as estimated in 2012, to 80 in 2014. In my community of Whyalla, we have nearly lost 80 jobs just because of the Warburton report and the uncertainty that the federal government have deliberately caused in the renewable energy sector, but nobody opposite talks about those jobs.

Ms REDMOND: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Is the point of order going to be relevance?

Ms REDMOND: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: I am waiting for the member for Giles to join up his remarks to the bill. If he fails to do that within the next half minute I will have to sit him down.

Mr HUGHES: Jobs are jobs. In addition, the impact on gross value production for the commercial fishing industry was revised down from 2.14 per cent to an estimated 1.98 per cent, so the sky is not going to fall in. The marine parks will create opportunities and the marine parks will protect incredibly important habitats in this state. The state's marine environment belongs to all South Australians and it is our job to protect it for future generations.

For all the reasons presented here today, the government opposes this bill in its entirety and condemns the Liberal Party's ongoing campaign to erode environmental protection law in this state. In coming years, the real test of leadership is going to be reconciling the demands of the environment with the demands of the economy; it is going to be the major global challenge we face, not just in this country. We are moving to a population of nine billion people and you have failed on this test of leadership.

The SPEAKER: Member for Giles, I may have failed in many things, but I have not failed in that. Your remark is disorderly and I call you to order. Have you finished?

Mr HUGHES: I have finished.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Stuart is also called to order. The member for Waite.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:02): Marine parks were first proposed under a Liberal government and, following extensive consultation and consideration, the Marine Parks Act was passed in 2007. The act is brief and not overly prescriptive; it gives extraordinary powers to the Minister for Environment to determine a management plan, including zoning regulations and boundaries.

In providing the Minister for Environment with such powers, it is incumbent on the minister and the government of the day to consult, consider and implement a management plan that meets the act's objectives and best serves the interests of the state. I acknowledge that this task is complex and the Minister for Environment and his predecessors have sought to arrive at a sound conclusion. What is apparent is that the consensus sought has not been reached on either side of this debate.

What is proposed in the bill is the reversion of 12 of the 84 sanctuary zones to habitat protection zones. There is agreement on broad consensus in relation to this bill and the Marine Parks Act. There is consensus over the establishment of a network of marine parks, comprising general managed use zones, habitat protection zones, sanctuary and restricted access zones. There is consensus that, from an ecological perspective, there is a need for a network of marine parks to achieve that end.

There is no dispute over 72 of the 84 sanctuary zones. Of the 12 identified in the bill, there is some recognition by the proponents of the bill that abolition of these sanctuary zones altogether is not a wholly ideal outcome. What is required is an amendment that realistically reflects the views of the community while meeting the stated objectives of the Marine Parks Act: that is to say, as a parliament and a government, we must strive to protect and conserve marine biological diversity and marine habitats, whilst respecting the existing local communities across South Australia.

The question proposed by the bill is simple: where should the boundaries lie for the 12 sanctuary zones in question? Under the act, there is a range of impactful activities that are restricted, depending on the classification of the zone. Sanctuary zones differ from habitat zones in a range of ways, but most substantial is the restriction on fishing.

The bill would maintain habitat protection for these crucial areas. The primary question that this bill raises, therefore, is whether fishing should be immediately and altogether excluded in the 12 nominated sanctuary zones. Since May, I have made every effort to fully consult and consider all of the viewpoints on this bill—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: —and I must say there is no wholly right or wrong answer on either side of the question.

The SPEAKER: The member for Heysen is warned for the second and final time.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I have been flooded with many hundreds of letters and emails, and I thank all of those people who have sent them to me, not to mention petitions and automated emails. I thank the community for their interest in this issue and their patience in my effort to follow due process.

I have met personally with the Minister for Environment and his staff, and I must commend them for the wonderful job they have done arguing their case. Allan Holmes, CEO of DEWNR, and the staff at DEWNR passionately believe in their cause. I have met with Professor Mehdi Doroudi, executive director of PIRSA. I have also met with the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the member for Goyder, and I thank them for their very convincing and passionate contribution on behalf of their side of the argument and for the consultation.

I have met with Jonas Woolford, Wildcatch Fisheries SA chairman; Jeff Sutton, recreational fisher; Kyry Toumazos, South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishermen's Association; Craig Wilkins, chief executive of the Conservation Council; Brenton Schahinger, chairman of RecFish SA; Greg James, local recreational fishing commentator; Peter Riseley, District Council of Robe; Allan Suter, District Council of Ceduna; Justin Phillips; David Hall; Professor Anthony Cheshire; and the list goes on. I have not mentioned everybody—only a small number—but I thank them all.

There is a case for the bill. Proponents of marine parks argue that only 6 per cent of South Australia's waters will be off limits to fishing. What no-one has been able to substantiate to me is what percentage of fishery stock will be impacted come 1 October. This impact is particularly acute for the abalone sector, with an inert species located in only a few select zones.

More importantly, there is a fundamental question about the efficacy of fisheries management through the blunt tool of exclusionary zones. As an independent liberal conservative, I believe that change should be gradual, incremental and, most importantly, be respectful to existing communities. The current situation apparently does not have the fulsome support of the community, particularly in the regions.

In order for these marine parks to work, they need a high degree of self-enforcement and self-management. We are considering large tracts of isolated ocean beyond the immediate reach of government. Without community support, the successful implementation of marine park networks may be doomed to fail. If the correspondence that I have received in my office is any barometer, the regional community's support for the measure is weak.

The state is in a precarious economic position. Now is not the time for government to make it harder for businesses and sole operators to stay in business, to employ South Australians and to create exports. The economic situation reinforces my view that the advocates of new regulation need to provide compelling evidence to support their proposal.

There is a case, of course, against the bill. From an environmental point of view, the scientific literature demonstrates that, for the marine park system to work, the network requires comprehensive and substantial coverage. If the marine park system is to achieve the objective that the act has set for itself, then, as a parliament, we must be mindful of that evidence.

The removal of 12 of the largest and most effective sanctuary zones would undermine the process altogether. In the view of the government and the environmental movement, the current sanctuary zone coverage is barely adequate. I have been advised that the original proposal sought to provide sanctuary zone coverage for 12.5 per cent of South Australian waters, and this has been negotiated down to 6 per cent. I have seen in my own lifetime—my grandfather was a professional fisherman, and I still have extended family in that business—the impact on the marine environment of poor environmental and fisheries management processes, particularly in Gulf St Vincent.

Industry requires sound regulation. The fishing sector recognises that regulation is required to maintain a sustainable marine environment and to sustain their jobs. On the whole, there is widespread support for marine parks, including habitat protection zones and sanctuary zones, because there are genuine concerns about the fragility of the marine life off our coasts.

There was also a compromise possible and, on consideration, my preference would have been for sanctuary zones to better reflect the sentiment of the communities expressed through the local advisory groups (LAGs), as opposed to complete abolition. In some instances, the final advice of the LAGs was impractical and unrealistic, but the information provided deserved to be taken into serious consideration. In addition, the practice of amending regulations through legislation is not preferable and can create needless complication. I sought a compromise that would have seen some of these zones—perhaps six of them—reduced but, for a range of reasons, that was not possible.

There are a range of considerations in this matter. I support marine parks and our environment. There can be no greater task for us than to protect that environment, but I also support small business, communities and economic growth in the regions. I have strong views on regulatory fairness and competitive neutrality. When you change the rules on a business, you move the goalposts and you run the risk of sending that family business broke through the flick of a pen.

The proponents of change must always make their case. In this case, they failed to adequately make the case, in my view, to justify all of the 84 sanctuary zones with the boundaries set to come into effect on 1 October. The proponents of the current marine parks networks have also failed to make the case that there needs to be a degree of urgency in this. Once the damage has been done to these regional communities, there will be no turning back.

As a government and as a state, there is always the option in the future of increasing the size and the scope of sanctuary zones within our marine environment, and in my view habitat protection zones are a sound interim measure. The bill is a blunt instrument, but it is the only instrument that is before the house and, as a consequence, on balance I will be siding with country communities and family business and I will be supporting the bill.

There being a disturbance in the strangers’ gallery:

The SPEAKER: The gallery will stop the applause or I will clear it immediately.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: At the same time, I will be supporting marine parks, the minister’s management plans, habitat zones and maintenance of 72 sanctuary zones. I am deeply committed to our environment, but I am also deeply committed to family businesses and to our country folk whose livelihoods depend on parliament making the right decision in this instance. I would have strongly preferred to have seen a compromise on the 12 sanctuary zones identified in this bill, but for a range of reasons that could not be negotiated. I look forward to supporting the measure.

The SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I am not having the house’s deliberations interrupted or obstructed by people in the galleries. This is not the French revolutionary convention of the 1790s. This house should have the dignity of a court. The Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Mark Parnell from another place have reserved places in the galleries today. If the people they have placed in the galleries disrupt the business of the house again, I will hold either or both of them in contempt of parliament, and if I hear another noise from the galleries I will clear them. The member for Frome.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government) (11:13): I want to make it clear from the outset that this issue is not a debate about whether or not we need marine parks. There is a broad agreement on the need to secure long-term benefits for our state by creating marine parks to protect our pristine coastal environment for generations to come. What we are debating in this bill today is the role of the sanctuary zones within those marine parks with restrictions on fishing in those zones which are set down to be regulated from 1 October this year.

This issue has been raised with me by many people covering a wide range of viewpoints through correspondence I have received, delegations I have received and in the course of my many visits to various parts of regional South Australia. As the member for Frome, I was largely comfortable with the way that consultation about sanctuary zones proceeded in my area during the last term of government. Since becoming Minister for Regional Development, people outside my own electorate have raised concerns about potential localised impacts in some other areas.

I have given it a lot of thought and I have used the time leading up to this debate to consult widely across the state with many people, including individuals, councils, commercial and recreational fishers and the conservation movement. I have travelled extensively across the regions to hear both sides of the sanctuary zones debate—and I thank mayor Suter for sending me the information—where I listened to the concerns of the Ceduna council and others.

I also sat at a table with fishing and community representatives on Kangaroo Island to hear their views with the member for Finniss. These many discussions have given me a real insight into the volume of work that has been carried out over the last 10 years and more, as well as the high level of consultation and the compromises that have been reached to get where we are today.

In my many visits to the regions I have stressed that my primary concern is the strength of our regions, both as a local member in a regional electorate and as the Minister for Regional Development. It is critical that we strike the right balance between the economic impact on local businesses in those regions and the need to protect our marine environment, and that includes looking to support businesses and communities to take up new and diversifying opportunities. I am all about supporting our regional communities and I want to see growth in those economies, building on the optimistic and positive mood I am seeing in my visits and in discussions with locals across the whole of the state.

There is one aspect of the debate that has become very clear to me in my discussions and through my attendance at many meetings with local groups and individuals. There are still perceptions and concerns out there in some regional communities about the economic impact of sanctuary zones, in communities such as those on Kangaroo Island, Ceduna on the West Coast and at Port Wakefield.

During the recent election campaign the opposition stated that it believed a sensible and sustainable approach to marine parks was critical. They has also committed to a review of marine park plans, but the bill seeks to wipe out 12 of the 83 sanctuary zones ahead of any review. Why are only 12 of the 83 sanctuary zones picked on? To me, this is heavy-handed and I do not believe it is a sensible and sustainable approach. The opposition’s approach appears to be more about politics than a real regard for the complex environmental and economic issues involved. The proposals in this bill have the potential to seriously undermine the effectiveness of the marine parks network and undo much of the good work that has been done over a decade.

I therefore cannot support the bill in its format because it seeks to eliminate 12 sanctuary zones across the state, seemingly without a solid foundation. That is not a sensible or workable solution. I have met with the opposition as part of my consultations, and I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the member for Goyder. I had a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. I have asked them to show me the economic evidence as to why they chose those 12—

Mr Marshall: We did not.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: Sorry, I take that back. I did not ask the Leader of the Opposition, but I asked the other two above all the others. Beyond making assertions, they have failed to convince me. The 12 sanctuary zones—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is warned for the first time.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: —they seek to remove represent a significant proportion of total sanctuary zones within marine parks, and by taking them out you considerably lower the levels of protection. Following my discussions, I have formed the view that a lot of the economic concerns appear to be based on perceptions and uncertainty about change, and I understand that. I am very sympathetic about that. This is on what might happen, rather than what will happen when the restrictions commence on 1 October.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is warned for the first time.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The August 2012 EconSearch report was prepared when the proposed sanctuary zones made up 12 per cent of state waters. As a result of consultation and compromise among stakeholders, that 12 per cent was halved to 6 per cent of state waters. So the EconSearch study was carried out on different sanctuary zone boundaries to those that will come into effect on 1 October.

In my meetings and discussions on this issue, I asked for local feedback, for fresh evidence—and I have made that request in this house before—regarding the likely impacts of sanctuary zones on our regions. The Department of Primary Industries and Regions examined material sent to me from the Ceduna council, for instance, but I was advised that that material contained no credible evidence that had not already been considered.

I had a constructive meeting with a group of concerned fishers on Kangaroo Island, with the member for Finniss, and I have met with people with fishing connections in the Port Wakefield area. In recent weeks an updated EconSearch report into the possible economic impacts on sanctuary zones has been issued, but it is not as comprehensive as its initial 2012 report.

I have also seen a final report issued this month by the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies into the economic benefits of marine parks. It has always been accepted that there would be some impact on commercial fishing once the marine parks came into effect. That is why there was a government commitment to a voluntary buyback program to offset those impacts. I understand those buybacks have been very successful to date, although I am advised that negotiations are continuing with one other sector.

I am also advised that 21 licences across five fisheries have been bought back, costing a significant amount of taxpayers' money, going into the millions of dollars. As well, I am advised there are provisions for a holder of a statutory authorisation to lodge a claim for compensation where they are of the view that their rights have been negatively impacted on zoning. I am advised that no claims have been made at this stage. However, I have made clear that I want to see more investigation into the economic and social impacts of sanctuary zones over the next 12 months, and for that I have asked work to start immediately on preparing comprehensive regional impact assessment statements, which will assess in detail the economic, social, community and environmental impacts with specific focus on the Kangaroo Island, Ceduna and Port Wakefield areas.

These regional impact assessment statements will also investigate the possible opportunities that could arise through marine parks, including marine-related business opportunities and other land-based/regional initiatives. If these assessments identify areas of—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is warned for the second time.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: —immediate economic concern, then these will be addressed as soon as they are identified, rather than waiting for the completion of the review. I reiterate, any areas identified as being of immediate economic concern will be addressed as soon as they are identified.

Also, we are looking at the management plans for the whole lot which, under the act, could be done within 10 years, but will begin within the term of this government. I have listened and learned over the past four months, and it has been taking up a lot of my time. I realise that my decision will not be supported in some quarters.

Mr Bell interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is warned.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: The opponents of sanctuary zones have made their feelings quite clear to me when I have met them. The supporters also have been as insistent on lobbying. I believe the time has come when you weigh up the options. This bill is nowhere near the best option. We now need to focus more clearly on exploring the potential out there in our regions, and the possible regional economic opportunities that can be developed, and this is not a decision I have taken very lightly.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:22): I thank those who have made contributions on this bill, but all I can say is that what you have said will be known by all. For some people who have said some things here today, the repercussions will be quite significant.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: What 'you' say is always known by all—it is recorded in the Hansard.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: The point of order is that he should be referring through the Speaker, not directly to the member for Frome.

The SPEAKER: The member for Goyder used the second person; I uphold the point of order.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Can I change tack then and say that I actually have in my hand an electronic petition, signed by 5,888 people as at 6am this morning. I have received letters from local government in the communities affected by these sanctuary zones—all against it. That is the level of representation for which the minister has direct responsibility. So, no doubt they have been in contact with him also. I have heard words here today about ecotourism opportunities. What a load of poppycock! It is just ridiculous! It will not occur.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Colton is warned for the second and final time.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It will not occur. I have heard one minister talk about the fact that revised figures come from 124 down to 80. They are real people, real families and real communities that they represent, and these people will be lost to those who live in the area, and we love the area. I am so disappointed by what I have heard today. It is fair to say that we just cannot believe it.

We thought there was a great opportunity here, a real chance for an improvement for people in regional South Australia. Instead—and I have to highlight this fact—the Minister for Regional Development, the Minister for Local Government has, I believe, gone against what the people in these communities say very strongly, and the repercussions will be significant.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Kavel is called to order!

Mr GRIFFITHS: There will certainly be a vote on it, and I enforce again that people will know what is said today. We will make sure, indeed, that people know what is said today and you will stand by it for a long time and you will be held to account for a long time.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Point of order. Again sir, he is using the second person.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. If the member for Bragg's lips move again she will be leaving the chamber. In fact, she will be named, which will have different consequences from the sessional order; and the member for Goyder is called to order for repeatedly using the second person. The proposition is that the bill be now read a second time.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 20

Noes 21

Majority 1

AYES
Bell, T.S. Chapman, V.A. Gardner, J.A.W.
Goldsworthy, R.M. Griffiths, S.P. (teller) Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.
Knoll, S.K. Marshall, S.S. Pederick, A.S.
Pengilly, M.R. Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M.
Sanderson, R. Speirs, D. Tarzia, V.A.
Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J.
Williams, M.R. Wingard, C.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Brock, G.G. Caica, P. Close, S.E.
Digance, A.F.C. Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.
Hughes, E.J. Kenyon, T.R. (teller) Key, S.W.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R.
Snelling, J.J. Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W.
PAIRS
Evans, I.F. Wortley, D. McFetridge, D.
Koutsantonis, A.


Second reading thus negatived.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley will leave the chamber for an hour.

The honourable member for Unley having withdrawn from the chamber:

Members interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for Mawson.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Mr Speaker, as the vote was announced and people moved back to their seats, the member for Finniss physically pushed the minister for regions.

The SPEAKER: If the point of order is to be made it should be made by the Minister for Regional Development.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK: This is a very emotional time. I indicated before it is not going to suit everybody. I have made a decision and some of the members on the other side are not happy with it as some of the public will not be happy with it, and whilst there may have been a slip, I am not taking it any further.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is called to order.

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