HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (15:33): I wish to raise my concerns over the methods being used—or, rather, misused—in the introduction of marine parks in South Australia. My concerns extend to the parks in the South-East and across the state, but today I will focus in particular on proposed Marine Park 6, which includes the majority of Spencer Gulf. I stress that no-one I know is against marine parks, and everyone is keen to see the preservation of all sections of marine ecology. However, the boundaries announced earlier this year by the department of environment encompass over 45 per cent of state waters.

If one overlays the national marine parks such as the Great Australian Bight, plus protected areas under natural resources legislation and various other acts and exclusion zones which already exist, it is not difficult to see that commercial fishing, recreational fishing, diving, charter boat operation and even surfing are under considerable threat.

The government is at pains to tell people that zoning within the marine protected areas will allow all these activities to take place and that the exclusion zones will be, to quote the minister, 'a mere dot; less than 5 per cent'. However, the proposed exclusion zones in Marine Park 6 are placed in virtually each corner of the boundary, in effect making the areas within the park either very difficult or impossible to access.

The fishing industry most affected by Marine Park 6 has gone to extraordinary lengths to propose areas within the marine boundaries which encompass all the ecosystems required by the minister but which allow other activities to take place. It has even, at its own expense, sent divers into the areas to photograph the biomass and ecology that exist within the region.

It has also offered to assist the department in defining other deep water areas as required, yet its efforts have fallen on deaf ears. The minister, or at least his departmental staff, have continued to sit on their hands without making any definite decision. They well know (as do my constituents) that, if no variations are made to the current boundaries by 28 July, any subsequent changes will need to go before both houses of parliament. We also know that there are only two sitting days remaining before 28 July and only 18 sitting days before the end of this year and probably the end of this parliament.

I am, therefore, forced to assume that this government will actually do nothing about zoning and will impose the current impractical and draconian boundaries until after the March 2010 election, thus leaving the stakeholders in limbo. This is not only wrong but scientifically debatable. Professor Robert Kearney, Emeritus Professor in Fisheries Management at the ANU, had this to say:

There is no fish species in South Australia for which marine parks represent the appropriate management measure...The real threats to the marine environment of South Australia are pollution in its many forms, freshwater extraction, coastal 'development' habitat destruction (particularly in intertidal nursery areas) and introduced species and diseases...Marine parks as proposed for South Australia do not provide protection of anything against any of the known threats. They are not 'marine protected areas' and the government's claim that they are is merely a distraction from the urgent need to address the lamentable failure to protect our coastal environments.

It is easy to assume that those concerned are the commercial fishing industry and, certainly, there has been extensive representation from that group. However, the Tumby Bay council and the Eyre Peninsula Development Board have also expressed extreme concern about the lack of any decision by the minister.

A statement from the Tumby Bay council reported in the Port Lincoln Times suggests that up to $190 million of tourism and recreational fishing could be lost to the area if the matter is not made clear in the immediate future. The minister has apparently foreshadowed his intentions to those who are most concerned by setting the outer boundaries where they are; therefore, he has placed the views of a very few above the views (and, indeed, the scientific evidence) of the many, including local government.

His decision has been described as a mere water grab approach. The implementation of poorly-planned marine parks represents a real threat to jobs on Eyre Peninsula. Worse still, this government is again purporting to be doing something when, in fact, it is sitting on its hands and refusing to make a decision. Could this be because, under the act, loss of commercial effort must be compensated? Yet, there is no provision for compensation within this year's budget.

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