HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARINE PARKS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood:

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.

(Continued from 6 April 2011.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:35): The debate over marine parks in general and sanctuary zones in particular has been characterised by quite an appalling level of misinformation. This proposed inquiry could be a vehicle for perpetuating this misinformation, or it could be a vehicle to correct this misinformation, and how it handles the evidence it receives will be the test of its credibility. It needs to be said that the terms of reference, even with the foreshadowed Liberal amendments, are loaded towards the perceived negative consequences of marine parks.

The misinformation campaign that is afoot at present is being driven by a number of factors, some political, some malicious, and some, I think, just genuine ignorance. If I were to summarise the situation into one sentence, I think I would say that there are a lot of people out there who are very worried and do not need to be. What I would like to do in my contribution is to go through some of the myths about sanctuary zones and no-take areas that have been sent to me by constituents, in correspondence, or have been posted on publicly-available blog sites debating the issue of marine parks. I will go through these; there are seven altogether.

The first myth that is out there is that jetty and beach fishing will be banned. One of the quotes I got was, 'I won't be able to fish from the jetty or beach any more.' Well, as recently as this week, I have had it confirmed to me by the government that the position it had many months ago (it may have even been a year ago) still remains, and that is that fishing will be allowed from all jetties and all popular beaches and breakwaters that are in marine parks. If we take jetties, for example, I do not think there is a single jetty that is proposed to be made off limits to fishing. So, that information needs to get out there because it is unfair to mums and dads who are worried that they will not be able to throw a handline off Glenelg Jetty or some other popular holiday spot once sanctuary zones are in place.

The second myth is that people are saying that sanctuary zones adjacent to beaches will mean that (and here is one quote from a blog site) 'activities like walking a dog, riding a horse, vehicle access, family gatherings and BBQs will be in jeopardy'. The fact is that none of those activities will be affected where it is currently allowed, and beaches adjacent to sanctuary zones will still be publicly accessible. The next myth that is out there is that all water sports will be banned in sanctuary zones, but the fact is that people will still be able to swim, to boat, to dive and to snorkel in sanctuary zones. No-take does not mean no-swim.

The next myth is that people are claiming that sanctuary zones are a threat to our way of life and a threat to our right to fish. In fact, one person put it to me that the environment department wants to close 27 per cent of our marine waters. The fact is that the sanctuary zones scenarios (and that is all they are) published by the government for the purpose of community consultation in fact left 90 per cent of South Australian waters open for fishing.

The next myth that is out there is that sanctuary zones will severely damage the commercial fishing industry. One person said, 'The only endangered species is fishermen.' People go further and say that sanctuary zones will not do anything to lead to an increase in fish numbers or fish populations. The fact is that you need fish in order to be able to fish. The many scientific studies on the effects of sanctuary zones that are published and peer reviewed show that there are significant increases in the abundance, the size, the diversity and the overall biomass of marine life once there are sanctuaries in place and that there is a further spillover of biomass into other unprotected areas.

This is a major benefit to commercial fishing and it will contribute significantly to the long-term sustainability of the fishing industry. Members might be aware of a University of Adelaide report by Dr Melissa Nursey-Bray published in January of this year, which concluded that:

Marine protected areas are proven to conserve marine life whilst providing a major boost to fisheries and other industries such as marine tourism.

She also said that marine parks provide:

...real social and economic benefits that go beyond biodiversity outcomes.

They are, after all, the outcomes that are the primary focus of marine parks, but the benefits go beyond protecting biodiversity.

The next myth that is out there, and this is in the terms of reference, is that marine parks will have a detrimental effect on property values. The first time that I heard that I received an email with a counter point of view. It did not have any words in the email, it just had a photo of a for sale sign where the No. 1 advertising ploy by the company was how close this property was to a world-class marine park.

It will be interesting, if this inquiry gets up, to see whether the evidence relating to property values is speculation and fear-mongering or whether it in fact looks at what has actually happened in other places, and the boost that real estate agents have in their marketing by the proximity of land they are selling to marine parks.

The final myth I want to refer to is this idea that somehow there is a conspiracy afoot which is the environment department locking up the most productive recreational fishing areas so that the government can then issue permits to fish in those areas. I have been urged to: beware of the hidden agenda, that this whole push for sanctuary zones is in fact just a grab for cash. It is hard to know how to respond to that because it is patently false. It has not been on any agenda that I have ever seen of either the government or the opposition. I think it is just plain rubbish.

In conclusion, I understand that this inquiry is likely to have support today and will get up. The test of this inquiry will be how it handles the evidence. How fair and even it is in looking at the arguments that are put before it. How rooted the committee is in its pursuit of scientific rigour, because I have no doubt that there will be a stream of credited marine scientists with peer-reviewed works on the topic that will seek to dispel some of the myths that are out there.

Finally, I will conclude by stating the obvious, that what we all want is the same thing, we all want more fish in the sea, some for commercial purposes, some for recreational purposes, some for biodiversity purposes, but marine parks are clearly a way to achieve that objective.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (17:43): I rise briefly to support the remarks of the Hon. Michelle Lensink, and I certainly will not be using the word 'rooted' in my speech, Mr President, like the Hon. Mark Parnell. I do not think this motion is rooted. I move:

Leave out paragraph 1(a) and insert new paragraph 1(a) as follows—

(a) what scientific evidence is available to guide the design and management of marine parks;

After paragraph 1(f) insert new paragraph 1(g) as follows—

(g) how the management of marine parks will be funded;

Regarding the amendment, the opposition has persistently sought the scientific evidence that the minister has stated has been used to base the no-take zones on. The government has been unable to provide it and the committee should have the scope to investigate this.

The opposition also wishes to know how the government will fund these marine parks within the budget constraints that it has; $1.5 million has been cut from the marine park budget this year before the sanctuary zones, and therefore the management costs, have been established.

According to Professor Andrew Balmford et al in an article published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the average cost of managing a marine park is $US775 per kilometre square annually. This was calculated in the year 2000. Naturally, this cost would have inflated over the past 11 years but, based on this figure, the cost of managing South Australia's marine parks could be in the vicinity of $21 million.

Despite our misgivings about this proposal, the Liberal Party is supportive of marine parks, but we want it to be done correctly. The party is firmly of the belief that the public and stakeholders should be informed about the full impact of the proposal on their lives and the basis for such a proposal.

Poor consultation by the minister and the department has been, and continues to be, a major problem. Those affected by this proposal deserve full disclosure and proper answers to their questions. This committee will attempt to alleviate some of the many problems arising from the marine park plan and the lack of consultation and forethought by this government.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (17:45): I indicate that the government will not support the establishment of this select committee, although I guess we are realistic enough to know what normally happens. It would be interesting to look back at all the select committees we have had in recent years to see if any of them have actually produced something worthwhile. I cannot think of one that has.

Clearly, they are being used for political purposes. Indeed, we saw that earlier with the select committee on electoral matters which, somehow or other, seemed to conveniently forget that in 2006 the Liberal Party had instigated these bogus electoral cards. Of course, we just heard Mr Wade's diatribe earlier on that particular select committee trying to reinvent history.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: What's that got to do with this one?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It shows that select committees are used for political purposes. They do not come up with anything worthwhile.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: If the Hon. Mr Dawkins wishes to prove me wrong, if he could just name one worthwhile thing that a select committee in this council has produced in the last couple of years, I would be interested to hear it. They have certainly played a lot of politics, and I suggest—as I will go on to show—that that is what this is about. I cannot think of any subject, other than marine parks, which has been subject to so much consideration. We have had legislation through the parliament.

The ideas have been around for more than a decade. There is scarcely an idea or a concept that has had as significant consideration in the community. We are fortunate in South Australia to have a marine environment that is world renowned for its unspoiled nature and for the enormous variety of marine plants and animals that live in our waters. We are committed to taking action now to ensure that our unique marine environment is protected for the future.

The marine parks program is based on the best available science, and it is being driven by local people who know the local waters better than anyone. The government is committed to ensuring that we end up with a system of marine parks that achieves conservation outcomes, but not at the expense of being able to throw a line.

I am curious to know what members opposite are committed to, but I think it would be fair to say that the tide is still out on that one. The hypocrisy and hysteria that has been played out through the media in recent months by members of the opposition has been extraordinary. I am sure—as members here would be well aware—that it was in fact the former Liberal government which first committed to introducing marine parks or marine protected areas, as they were known in the mid-1990s. It now seems that they cannot actually agree on what their policy is. They want marine parks but, apparently, they want to abolish no take zones, but that, of course, depends on who you speak to.

I note that there was a letter in the Victor Harbor Times on 7 April last, written by the member for Hammond which, in addition to making a number of inaccurate claims about marine parks, only adds to the confusion about his own party's policy on marine parks. While it is encouraging that the member for Hammond said that the Liberal Party supports both marine parks and sanctuary zones, that very same edition of the Victor Harbor Times reports that the opposition leader was saying that they would scrap no-take zones if elected into government.

I believe there is also a video circulating on YouTube—which was recently mentioned by the Minister for Environment and Conservation in another place—which confirms the opposition leader's intent to abolish these zones. I think I recall her being reported at a public meeting. I recall before the last election, when we were talking about the Olympic Dam expansion, that the Leader of the Opposition appeared to say some things in a meeting with locals but, when it gets to a broader organisation, she seems a bit confused about what she has actually said. Certainly it is recorded that the Leader of the Opposition claims that she would scrap no-take zones if elected into government.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: I would rather have our leader than the dog you've got.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Perhaps the Hon. Mr Stephens would like to have a confused leader, because of course we don't know how much longer she will be there. It is quite clear that the numbers are gathering. The leader of the Australian Labor Party has been around for—I think has seen off seven, is it—

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Nine.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: —nine leaders.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: How about a retirement package?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: You can change the subject, but you interjected, so if you want to talk about the subject I am only too happy to indulge the honourable member and the leader. The YouTube video I was talking about certainly showed the member for Bragg standing behind her leader, as she always does of course, barely able to contain her excitement at the news that they are going to get rid of no-take zones.

As I think I said by way of interjection when the Hon. Michelle Lensink was talking in this place, if you take the land-based equivalent, presumably you would have national parks where you could go and hunt all the native animals in them. That would be the sort of analogy you would have. I am aware that the shadow minister for environment—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Because it doesn't make sense. The government is trying to do what makes sense, and we are still considering. If you listen, I am about to go through how we are consulting, but the opposition cannot wait. The are following the new Tony Abbott formula for politics. This is the new Tony Abbott formula for politics: don't have any substance; it does not matter. Do a complete 180 degree U-turn on what you have done in the past, but just say anything; just oppose for the sake of opposing.

I am aware that the shadow minister for environment has claimed in this place that she supports sanctuary zones, in spite of her leader's recent comments. She made that comment when I interjected during a speech. In fact, the shadow minister did not deny her leader's comments but instead protested, 'It wasn't me'. The irony of all this is that it was the former Liberal government that committed to the development of a state-wide marine conservation strategy. It was the former Liberal government which, so to speak, got the ball rolling on marine parks.

I refer to the then minister for environment and natural resources, the Hon. David Wotton, who in 1998 announced the Liberal government's plans to develop a blueprint to protect and conserve our marine environment for all future generations. In the same year the former premier. the Hon. Dean Brown, when discussing the newly formed Great Australian Bight Marine Park, also declared his government's commitment to participating in what he called a new era of environmental and conservation awareness.

As the shadow minister herself mentioned in this place, the Liberal government then went on to release the maritime and estuary strategy for South Australia in 2000. In 2001 the former premier, the Hon. Rob Kerin, and the then minister for environment and current member for Davenport, the Hon. Iain Evans, released their vision to establish marine protected areas in South Australia. In that release the former environment minister said:

The government has now taken the view that this is an issue which must be addressed now, before it is too late and future generations are left with marine issues which will be much more difficult to fix than to prevent.

So, it would seem that those opposite should look to their predecessors for the vision they once had for the protection of our precious marine environment. Now where do they stand? They simply do not know: they change their view with tides. Is the tide in or out on marine parks and will the tide ever come back in?

Now they have indicated their intent to support this motion, but on what grounds? I suspect simply to buy themselves some more time while they continue to figure out what their policy is. Presumably for them, again with the Tony Abbott strategy, it is just to play pure politics on anything. I guess under that new strategy saying no always seems to be a good bet, even if it shows total hypocrisy.

To get back to the motion, the Hon. Mr Hood quite rightly stated during his contribution that marine parks are not about fisheries management, and that is a fact which the government has been very clear about right from the start. Marine parks are designed to protect and conserve healthy examples of all of our precious marine plants and animals and the habitats in which they live. They are not being introduced to manage or target a particular fish species. That is why we have separate fisheries management legislation. I know that appears to be a difficult concept for some people to understand, but if you look beneath the surface you will see there is more than just fish in the ocean.

I would like to point out to members the range of ecological benefits of marine parks. They are significant, and they can include increases in the abundance, the overall size and diversity of sea life; an increased ability of local marine life to reproduce; and protection of habitat critical to key life cycle stages, such as spawning, nursery and feeding grounds. We have had nursery parks and nursery reserves for many decades, and they have always been recognised as an essential part of conserving stocks, in particular. There is a spillover of fish into unprotected areas, which can lead to improved fishing in areas adjacent to sanctuary zones, and there is the restoration of the healthy natural balance of marine ecosystems generally.

There are also potential social and economic benefits that could be achieved by protecting our marine biodiversity, as has been demonstrated in other states and in places around the world. We know that marine parks can help to support commercial and recreational fisheries by maintaining the health of the marine environment and through marketing opportunities associated with harvesting from clean and natural environments. They can also enhance regional tourism opportunities by providing opportunities for interstate and international visitors who come to our state to view our healthy and relatively unspoiled coastal and marine environments.

May I just add that I applaud the minister for fisheries, who recently announced that he is going to do something to prevent some of those people who come from interstate and who, unfortunately, want to catch copious amounts of our fishing resources, but that is another issue. Indeed, the ecotourism opportunities created as a result of the establishment of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park were once lauded by the former Liberal government, but now the view of the Liberals is that marine parks are bad for regional communities.

The motion also questions the science that underpins marine parks and, indeed, there have been numerous statements made by members of the opposition in relation to the apparent lack of science supporting this program. However, the marine parks program is based on the best available international, national and local marine science. It is also advised by an independent scientific working group, which is made up of some of our state's most pre-eminent marine scientists.

The government's approach to marine parks establishment is also consistent with a 2009 consensus statement issued by the Australian Marine Sciences Association (AMSA), Australia's largest professional association of marine scientists, with over 900 members nationally. Of course, that is not good enough for some. Perhaps it is too difficult for them to understand the science and, therefore, it is just easier to say that there is none. It is quite clear that the Liberal Party held a different view in days gone by.

The member for Davenport—and I think this is worth considering—back in the year 2000 was then minister for environment, and he stated in parliament:

The world's marine biodiversity is facing serious and worsening threats as a result of pollution, over-exploitation, conflicting uses of resources and damage to and destruction of their habitat.

That is what he said 11 years ago, but now they choose to ignore the science. He was claiming that we were facing serious and worsening threats as a result of pollution and over-exploitation.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: So what was what he was relying on then? He says now there is no science So 10 years ago that is what he said, based on advice. Now members opposite are saying 'Oh, there is no science to it.' They now claim they need a parliamentary committee to consider the science.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The opposition should stop fighting.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As I have already stated, this government has designed the marine parks program based on the best available international, national and local science. Fourteen design principles were adopted in 2008, which provide the scientific basis for the marine parks program. These principles were developed after consideration of three decades of Australian and international marine protected areas, scientific and management experience—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Three decades of it, and you say that there is not enough science. In addition, a technical report on the outer boundaries of South Australia's marine parks network was released in 2009 and describes the process used to select the 19 individual marine parks that make up South Australia's marine parks network. In fact, members were invited by the Minister for Environment and Conservation to witness firsthand a sample of the science that underpins marine parks in a parliamentary presentation on 23 March this year. Unfortunately, I do not think many members were interested in taking up the offer; it is much easier to get up and criticise rather than actually going to see the evidence.

I am not surprised that the opposition has proposed removing the reference to Professor Kearney. While he is well placed to give advice on managing fisheries, marine parks, as we have said, are not just about fisheries: marine parks aim to protect representative examples of all marine habitats along South Australia's coastline.

I have been advised by the Minister for Environment and Conservation that the scientific working group—which, as I said, is made up of 12 independent scientists who have expertise in a range of scientific fields relevant to marine conservation initiatives—comprehensively rejected Professor Kearney's critique of the government's work, describing it as a misleading perspective with errors of fact and reliance on outmoded thinking. The motion also seeks to analyse the economic impact of marine parks and the potential for detrimental impact on property prices. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 18:02 to 19:45]


The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Before the dinner adjournment, I was just pointing out how this motion, and the amendment to it, seeks to analyse the economic impact of marine parks and the potential for a detrimental impact on property prices.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: You weren't even here. I am sure you were listening upstairs, as I am sure they do, Mr President. But, as all members should be aware, impact statements are a requirement under the Marine Parks Act 2007. The parliament has already committed to analysing the economic impacts of marine parks through the preparation of impact statements for the draft marine park management plans. The impact statements will independently assess impacts on commercial and recreational fishing, tourism and property values.

It is also important for members to note that impacts can be positive. For example, experience from interstate shows us that real estate agents and developers interstate are promoting real estate that is close to marine parks because they recognise that marine parks are an investment in the future—an insurance policy that protects the environment that draws people to these special places. I think the Hon. Mark Parnell gave a specific example of that that he was aware of.

Marine parks can be a protection for their investment as much as they are for the environment. There are examples from interstate, where real estate next to sanctuary zones is in high demand because there is a commitment by the government to prioritise these areas for conservation, which has the added benefit of protecting coastal views—a key driver for real estate values.

Experience from interstate tells us that marine parks can also benefit recreational fishing. In some areas, the number of anglers and boat registrations has increased, and surveys show increased satisfaction with their fishing experience, as there are commonly reports of better fishing in marine parks—for example, Bateman's Bay in New South Wales, the Narooma District Chamber of Commerce and Tourism website, or the Ningaloo Reef in Western Australia.

The Hon. Mr Hood has questioned the government's commitment to the consultation process, and the shadow minister has also made comments in this regard. To suggest that the government is not consulting on this issue is absolutely absurd. The government is—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: You're not listening.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Not listening? The final product is not even out yet. How can you say we are not listening when the process still has at least 12 months to go? That is how inane the comments are when the shadow minister says we are not listening, we do not even have the results and we have 12 months left in the process. It is just inane, and it is typical of how politics is being played on this issue—really just inane politics.

The government is currently undertaking an extensive community engagement program. It has been going for many years and will continue until marine park management plans are finalised. We are committed to ensuring that the community has direct input into the design of our marine parks, and that is why we established 13 marine park local advisory groups, which are based across the state.

The advisory groups were established so that we could directly engage locals, who know the local waters better than anyone, to assist the government in selecting the best locations for sanctuary zones. The advisory groups exceed the requirements of the Marine Parks Act 2007 and provide the community with an additional opportunity to provide input into the development of marine park management plans.

Members may be interested to know that the advisory groups have already met up to five times each and they are currently finalising their advice on the preferred zoning arrangements. Many community members of these groups have volunteered a significant amount of time to get the best possible advice from their local communities on their preferred locations of sanctuary zones.

Members opposite, however, refuse to believe that this is a community-led process. They ignore the fact that we have established local groups right around the state and that we have gone far beyond what is set out in the Marine Parks Act to ensure that we get as much local input as possible. But it is easier for them to sit on the sidelines and cry wolf, to claim we are not consulting, to cross their fingers and hope that someone might believe them. It is absurd.

I would like to recognise and commend all members of local advisory groups who have put in countless hours of work over many months, working with their local communities to develop advice for government. It is the community that has invested significant time, expertise and knowledge in this process. The government is not prepared to put the community's input to waste. That is why, whether or not the motion is successful, the government intends to honour its commitment to finalise management plans for South Australia's marine parks by mid-2012. So, we are still more than 12 months away.

In closing, I would like to make a few final comments on behalf of the government. These are points that need to be put on the record:

fishing will not be affected in the majority of waters within our marine parks;

marine parks are about zoning for conservation, not about zoning to stop people fishing;

the government has made numerous commitments to ensure that the impact on recreational and commercial fishers is minimised;

the government has made no decision about the location or sizes of sanctuary zones;

there will be a further full public consultation later this year, once draft management plans have been prepared; and

the parliament has already committed to analysing the economic impacts of marine parks through the preparation of impact statements for the draft marine park management plans.

So, as I have already indicated, the government will not support this motion. In my view, given the significant amount of time and resources already invested in the development of our state's marine parks, it would be an irresponsible and entirely unnecessary use of parliamentary resources. All the information sought by this motion is already freely available and accessible and, I suggest, a parliamentary committee is completely unnecessary.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (19:52): Thank you, Mr President, for the opportunity to sum up. This is the first select committee that I have introduced in my just over five years in parliament. To accuse me of being somebody who is doing something like this lightly is just not supported by the evidence. As I said, it is the first time I have put a select committee forward in five years. I am doing this simply because I believe there is a genuine issue here. At the very least, this will send a signal to the government that this is something that matters a great deal to a lot of people.

I would like to thank various members for their indication of support of the motion. The Hon. Ms Lensink spoke eloquently on behalf the opposition, and I thank her. I thank the Hon. Mr Stephens and other members for their indication of support. I will not mention them by name as they have not spoken. I do not want to tie them to supporting me if they have a last-minute change of mind, but I believe that is unlikely.

I would also just like to very quickly sum up the reason for the motion: it basically allows recreational and commercial fishers to have a say. Despite what we have heard tonight, many of them have said to me, quite sincerely, that they do not feel they have been listened to.

There are other issues, of course. One is that existing Australian marine-protected areas currently represent some 38 per cent of the entire global marine areas; that is 840,000 square kilometres out of a possible 2.2 million square kilometres globally, and that is before the addition of these 18 marine parks that are proposed.

Marine parks in South Australia have been declared in over 46 per cent of the state's territorial waters as a proposal, at this stage, anyway, and, as we know, management plans for these parks are currently being developed. In addition to the Marine Parks Act 2007, an area of approximately 1,892 square kilometres of state waters is already protected, including no-take sanctuary areas under other existing legislation. This amounts to 3.1 per cent of the state's territorial waters.

We already have highly-regulated fishing zones. Indeed, from 6 per cent of the global exclusive economic zone that is allocated to us, Australia produces just 0.2 of 1 per cent of the world's catch. We already have size limits, bag limits, boat limits, closed seasons and no-take species, and recreational fishers are saying that enough is enough. I will leave it there. There are a number of other details to go into; we have a lot of business to cover tonight.

As I have said, I have personally moved for one select committee in my just over five years in this place, and I have done so because I think it is an important issue and there are people out there who genuinely feel they have not been listened to.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

The council appointed a select committee consisting of the Hons P. Holloway, Carmel Zollo, T.J. Stephens, J.M.A. Lensink and D.G.E. Hood; the committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from place to place; the committee to report on 27 July 2011.

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