HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARINE PARKS (PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Some questions were raised by the Hon. Michelle Lensink in her second reading contribution, and I would like to take this opportunity to put the answers to those questions on the record. In relation to who assesses the 5 per cent figure—is it just DENR, is Treasury involved, is PIRSA involved, and to what degree is that in the form of a multi-office committee?—I have been advised that, in accordance with section 14(4)(c) of the Marine Parks Act 2007, the Minister for Environment Conservation is required to prepare a draft management plan and impact statement for each marine park.

The draft management plans will include the zoning for each marine park, and the impact statements will include an assessment of the expected economic impact of the marine park zoning on the commercial fishing industry. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) will prepare the impact statements with assistance from experts and other government agencies, which will include both Treasury and PIRSA. The Marine Park Steering Committee and the Marine Parks Council of South Australia will also provide advice on these impact statements.

The Marine Parks Steering Committee is chaired by DENR, and member agencies include the Department of Planning and Local Government, the Department of Trade and Economic Development, PIRSA, Aquaculture and Fisheries, the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, Marine Logistics and Policy, the Office of Major Projects, the Environment Protection Authority, PIRSA Mining and Energy Resources, the South Australian Tourism Commission, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Treasury and Finance.

The second question was: what is the current total budget for the marine parks program and what will it be in 2012-13 and 2013-14? I have been advised that the current budget in 2010-11 is $3.477 million and that the forward budget in 2012-13 and 2013-14 is $1.977 million per annum.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Page 2, lines 11 to 13—Delete lines 11 to 13 and substitute:

Section 14(9)—delete subsection (9)

Just by way of explanation, during the second reading debate, we had an explanation about what this bill does. These amendments will capture the initial management plans as part of the amended process; therefore, they would be subject to being examined by the Legislative Review Committee, as they would be in regulations. I have had correspondence with the Wilderness Society about this, and we have agreed to disagree. In my opinion, regulations being a disallowable instrument is a bit of a toothless tiger, but I think the parliament having an opportunity to comment on the content of regulations is a useful indication in order to express its view about those amendments. What it comes down to really is whether the community will ultimately be happy with the process.

Some may say that these management plans and zoning will not be effective until 2012. That is not really an argument, in my view, because it is just delaying what will take place. Within the last week, we have had media reports emanating from Port Augusta, the South-East, Kangaroo Island and Ceduna. It has not just been the fishing industry: it has been local government people, as well, who have expressed their serious concerns about the potential impact the marine parks will have on those areas. I think it is important that the parliament is able to continue to express a view about the management plans and, therefore, I would urge all honourable members to support the amendments.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government does not support these amendments for the following reasons. When the government consulted on the draft bill, key stakeholders such as commercial fishers supported that bill, specifically acknowledging that it related only to future revisions to management plans, not to initial plans. The original intent of the bill as requested by the fishing industry was to provide long-term zone security. The purpose of the bill was to ensure that a minister or government of the day could not make changes to previously agreed zoning arrangements.

Scrutiny of the initial plans is not necessary to provide this outcome. Providing the opportunity for parliamentary disallowance after the extensive work undertaken by marine park local advisory groups, key stakeholders and community members to develop the initial plans has the potential to undermine the genuine effort and investment these community members will have made during this extremely lengthy and very comprehensive and consultative process that has been going on for a number of years.

It also provides the parliament the opportunity to completely disrupt the marine parks program by disallowing the initial plans and forcing the government to redo several years' work with the community. Matters relating to the displacement of commercial fishers cannot be resolved until management plans are in effect and beyond disallowance. Ambiguity about the commencement of management plans would create uncertainty and insecurity. The possibility for parliamentary disallowance of initial marine park management plans exceeds the approval process for other plans such as those under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and the Aquaculture Act 2001.

One has to put on the record that the journey so far has not generated an overall consensus. We have never said that there is unanimous agreement to all of this. However, it has been a very lengthy and comprehensive process. It has involved extensive community engagement and consultation, and we have reached agreement with major stakeholders in relation to these matters.

I am saying that there is not unanimous consensus and I am not surprised that honourable members may find a party here or there that may not be in agreement. However, overall, we have managed to reach agreement, and to support this amendment would simply undo years of extensive work and bring about ambiguity and insecurity to the industry.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens will not be supporting the amendment for many of the same reasons that the minister has just outlined. There can be no doubt that the process of creating and then determining the rules for the management of marine parks will be contentious and controversial. We do need to learn from some of the lessons interstate. The main lesson I think for us to learn is to try, as far as we can, to bring the community with us.

My feeling is that, even amongst professional and recreational fishing bodies, at the end of the day is the absolute truth that, if we do not look after important parts of the marine environment, there will be no fish to catch either professionally or recreationally. So, we do need to have strong marine parks.

The controversy cuts both ways. Certainly I have seen people in the fishing industry who are nervous around the potential extent of sanctuary zones; in other words, zones where fishing will not be allowed. I did take the opportunity yesterday to look at the website and to look at some of the indicative only sanctuary areas. My first reaction was that most of them do not go far enough. I will be looking to put my oar in to try to strengthen some of those sanctuary zones.

If we take, for example, a debate that we have had in this place for some time—the fate of the giant Australian cuttlefish. When you overlay a map of the proposed sanctuary zone with a map of the main breeding area, they do not overlap all that well. The area where I went diving adjacent to the refinery is not included as part of a proposed sanctuary and, over the next 12 months or so, I would be keen (as I think many conservationists would be) to try to make sure that we do get the best possible management plan for that part of the coast and, in particular, we do get strong sanctuary zones.

I said in my second reading contribution that allowing the parliament (either house) to disallow the initial management plan will be a power far greater than exists in any other planning exercise. We certainly do not have that power for terrestrial zoning. We do not have it for terrestrial park management plans. We do not have it for aquaculture management plans.

Whilst I am normally a big fan of giving the parliament as much authority and as often as possible, I do not think that marine parks are best served in this state by allowing all the work that will be done by many people in good faith over many years to be undone at the initial stage by the Legislative Council (presumably) throwing out the initial management plan.

We need to get those first plans up and running. We need to give them a chance to work. If they need revision, then the government can propose revisions, and if we as a parliament do not like those revisions, then we can disallow them, but we do need to give the initial plan a chance to work. What someone put to me some time ago—and I think it rings true—is that we have made so many mistakes on the land in relation to planning, zoning and clearing areas that should not have been cleared and over allocating water, and we are destined to repeat them in the sea if we do not have good management arrangements in place.

Goyder's line, for example—that line drawn so long ago determining where was a reliable place to plant crops—people ignored that at their peril. We do not even have a Goyder's line in the sea. What we find is primary industries allocating fish stocks, often I think unwisely. The onus of proof is often on those who are predicting the collapse of species to prove it and, as a result, we have in Australia and globally the collapse of many commercial stocks because we have not properly looked after them. The one thing we can do is to look after the breeding grounds for those species, the sanctuary zones. The Greens will not be supporting the Liberal amendment and we would urge other members to allow the government's bill to pass in its current form.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: In many ways I think this amendment is not really an environmental amendment at all. It is really an amendment, as I understand it, about whether or not parliament should have authority to disallow particular decisions. We spend a lot of time in this place looking at that precise issue; that is, what parliament should be able to allow and to disallow. We have extensive regulations and parliament has the power to disallow, as I understand, virtually all of them. I cannot see why this should be any different.

I think there are genuine concerns about the extent of marine parks in our community. I must say, other than the so-called conscience vote issues such as euthanasia and the like, putting those conscience vote type issues aside, I think I would have had the most correspondence on this single issue since I have been elected to this place, which is coming up to five years now, and the numbers against have far outweighed those in favour of marine parks.

Members might recall that it was Family First that moved an amendment to the original act when it went through two or three years ago, which insisted that people who drifted into these areas innocently, just happened to be fishing—I am not talking about commercial fishing but recreational fishing—should get a warning before they got a fine. The proposal was to give these people an automatic fine if they innocently drifted in there and threw a line over the side of the boat with their son or daughter or whoever it may be, and we were successful in getting that amendment up.

I think the parliament should have the power to disallow these regulations. I think the Hon. Ms Lensink put it very succinctly and, for that reason, Family First will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In responding to some of those comments, we have had the usual hubris and hyperbole from the government using language such as, 'This would disrupt the process'. The fact is that, with regulations, the government can just place them back on, so all of the work that will go into those initial plans will not be lost—that is just not true.

I was bemused by the Hon. Mark Parnell's comments about parliamentarians wanting to have a say. I think that is entirely what this amendment is about, and I find his position a little inconsistent with some of the other positions that he has put. Be that as it may, the fact is that a lot of communities just do not trust this process and would like—if there were enough of us in this chamber to disallow it—to express their view about their concerns.

As a further argument in his comments against this amendment the Hon. Mark Parnell urged caution. I agree with that, but I would also like to reiterate that it is not the job of marine parks to manage fisheries sustainably; that is the job of PIRSA and the fisheries act. The marine parks are to protect representative areas, breeding grounds and the like. So, I do not think that should be used as an argument for disagreeing with this particular amendment. However, I think enough has been said, so I would again encourage honourable members to support the amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (9)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller)
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES (10)
Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A.
Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P.
Parnell, M. Vincent, K.L. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C.
PAIRS (2)
Lucas, R.I. Hunter, I.K.

Majority of 1 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clause (4) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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