HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARINE PARKS

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:11): I move:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire into and report upon marine parks in South Australia and, in particular—

(a) claims by Professor Bob Kearney that the evidence used by the government in support of marine parks reflected a 'biased misuse of the available science';

(b) detrimental effects to recreational fishers and the commercial fishing industry through the imposition of marine parks;

(c) detrimental effects to property values through the imposition of marine parks;

(d) complaints by local communities and fishing groups regarding the consultation process associated with the implementation of marine parks;

(e) interstate and international moves to limit the extent of sanctuary zones; and

(f) the correct balance of general marine park areas to no-take sanctuary zone areas.

2. That standing order No. 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order No. 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

I think there is little doubt in this place where Family First stands in relation to marine parks. Our position has been clear, I think, for a number of years now. When legislation to impose marine parks was debated in this place in 2007, I made our position very clear. I noted then that marine parks were not about protecting our fisheries.

Marine parks seemed to us more of a vague concept that did not have much in the way of science or conservation behind it. It imposes fines and an unwanted bureaucracy on the family tradition of getting into a dinghy and going fishing with the kids, and Family First opposed the intended implementation of these parks back then. If sanctuary zones were about protecting our fisheries then we would wholeheartedly support them. They are, however, not about that.

However, as I noted in 2007, Australia already had, to quote one fishing identity, 'one of the least productive, most heavily regulated and expensively administered fishery sectors in the world.' Indeed, from 6 per cent of the global exclusive economic zone, we produce just 0.2 per cent of the world's catch.

As I have noted before, Australia has the third largest fishery zone in the world. Our coastline is about eight times longer than that of Thailand and Vietnam, and our exclusive economic zone is 21 times that of Thailand and 15 times that of Vietnam, yet Thailand's wild caught fish harvest is 12 times Australia's and Vietnam's is eight times ours. Despite its smaller area, New Zealand's total fishery production is twice ours. Bangladesh's production, believe it or not, of wild fish caught is actually four times greater than Australia's. We already have size limits, bag limits, boat limits, closed seasons and no-take species, and fishers are saying, 'Enough is enough.'

The fact that we have to import 70 per cent of our domestic seafood consumption, prior to these zones being put in place, makes me wonder whether we are already going too far in regulating our oceans. These imports cost our economy $1.8 billion a year. Frankly, with our expansive exclusive economic zones there is no reason why we need to be reliant on fish caught in Thailand or other South-East Asian countries. Our waters are already over-regulated and we, therefore, oppose the further regulation that marine parks entail. I have mentioned previously the remarks of marine biologist Dr Walter Starck, who noted:

The establishment of extensive MPAs amounts to large-scale environmental meddling, with no clear idea of efficacy or consequences...having important decisions based on unverifiable claims, unexaminable models, unknown methods and inaccessible data simply is not good enough.

Given those remarks, I was not surprised to read comments from Bob Kearney, Emeritus Professor of Fisheries at the University of Canberra. He is reported as arguing in the 8 March edition of The Advertiser that the government paper, The Science of Marine Parks, presented biased advocacy for marine parks that is contrary to the conclusions that should be drawn from available literature. To quote directly from the article:

In a carefully worded response to the marine parks report, Professor Kearney said it was exaggerated, incorrectly interpreted other reports and reflected a biased misuse of the available science. He also accused it of misrepresenting and distorting the likely outcomes of marine parks to the people of South Australia.

It is rare for this sort of bold statement to come from someone of Professor Bob Kearney's international reputation and therefore must be taken seriously. I proposed in the motion that the inquiry address the serious claims of intellectual misrepresentation from the emeritus professor as a matter of first priority.

The second issue I seek to have addressed is the current impact of proposals on recreational and commercial fishers. In my discussions with these groups I am advised that many feel that they have not had an adequate airing of their views and that they find this very frustrating. An inquiry would give these groups a fair right of hearing and a forum to list grievances they may have.

It is unfair, in my submission, to deny groups such as recreational fishers that right. Indeed, 240,000 South Australians fish at least once per year and 5 million Australians regularly fish for recreation and sport. This means that one in every four Australians enjoys fishing, and one in every two Australian households owns fishing tackle. This is a significant group and they deserve a fair hearing—something they say has been denied to them in the community consultation process to date.

The third issue that needs investigation relates to property values. A recent Advertiser article dated 6 March relays the concerns of a very famous, well-known, former valuer-general by the name of John Darley. It reads:

The value of thousands of holiday shacks, rental properties and homes in or near the planned 140 no-go zones across South Australia will fall by 25 per cent on average, state MP and former Valuer-General, John Darley, has warned.

This comment, made by the now honourable member, was that fishing is a big attraction at many coastal towns across the state and that if you take it away demand for those properties will impact prices and indeed they will fall.

The other comment made was that a lot of shacks have been built in areas solely because of local fishing opportunities and that the value of these will fall even further if fishing were banned due to the imposition of sanctuary zones in these areas. These serious concerns need to be addressed. These people have a right to be heard; certainly, if it affects their property values it is a significant imposition on them personally.

One of the other concerns I have heard time and again relates to the consultation process. Almost invariably I have been hearing from fishing groups that the consultations are less an invitation for input and more a matter of these groups being told what has already been decided. This complaint has been a longstanding and ongoing complaint, in particular related to the marine park consultation process.

As far back as 2007, when marine parks were first being debated, 14 South Australian fishing groups—and these are groups across the spectrum—joined forces to prepare a statement critical of the consultation process in particular. They noted to me back then—and I quote from their letter:

Issues and comments submitted in relation to the draft bill by the seafood industry and a number of other groups, including conservation and recreational bodies, have been largely disregarded.

It seems that the conservation groups also feel that they have not been consulted. That complaint has continued to come to me, and I am keen that the consultation process itself be looked at.

Finally, the motion calls for a look at the interstate and international experience with marine parks and the right balance of no-take zones within those parks. The New South Wales opposition has just released a report, entitled 'Restoring the Balance', which calls for a moratorium on the creation of new marine parks until more is understood about their effectiveness in protecting fish stocks and the marine environment in general. Victoria is doing something similar. In addition, the member for Finniss was recently reported as calling for a moratorium on the imposition of sanctuary zones in marine parks and an inquiry into the consultation process, and members of this chamber would be aware that the Hon. Michelle Lensink has a motion to that effect in this place.

So, in short, I think that inquiry is called for. Marine parks are something that affect the 240,000 recreational fishers in South Australia, as well as the industry, of course. They deserve to have their complaints investigated and fairly heard, just as we need answers in response to the scientific claims of misrepresentation of data in support of the parks. Mr President, I think this is only the first select committee that I have called for in my five years in this place now. I think that reflects the seriousness with which I personally hold this issue and also the disquiet within the community. I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.

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