HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:07): I move:

That the interim report be noted.

I rise to provide a summary of the interim findings of the majority of the members of the Select Committee on Marine Parks in South Australia that this house was good enough to allow us to investigate. There are also findings by a minority of the committee, the Labor members, who issued a dissenting statement.

First, I thank all members of the committee, which has seen some member changes over its life. It has been a fairly longstanding select committee, approaching two years now, or certainly over a year and a half. I was the chairperson. The two Liberal members, the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Terry Stephens, have been with us since the beginning.

There have been some changes in the Labor membership because those members have left the chamber, but currently we have the Hon. Carmel Zollo, and the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars joined us for the last two meetings of the committee. Prior to that we had the Hon. John Gazzola, who now occupies the President's chair, and the Hon. Paul Holloway, who is no longer a member of this place. I thank all members for their contribution to the committee over the period it has run.

Although it is obviously an issue of some contention, the committee has cooperated well. I think on both sides, for both Liberal and Labor members, it has been a worthwhile exercise and, in my opinion, it has been entered into with the right spirit. I also thank the parliamentary staff. Leslie Guy and Guy Dickson have been the secretaries of the committee, and they have been outstanding, as we have grown to expect from them.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: They're good guys.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: They're good guys, indeed. They have shown excellent organisational skills, and we have been very spoilt as committee members with their involvement, particularly arranging the committee's travel. We have travelled to all parts of the state, it has been organised very well, and I place my thanks to them on the record.

I also thank research officer, Geraldine Sladden, who I had not had anything to do with prior to the commencement of this committee. She has shown herself to be diligent and very timely in her work, and I thank her for that. I also acknowledge the considerable time devoted by departmental witnesses, representatives of the industry and professional bodies, fishers and members of the public who gave their substantial evidence over quite a period of time.

I mention only a few matters of history in my contribution this afternoon. On 27 April 2012, the government announced substantial changes to the initial proposed sanctuary zones which will necessarily alter the impacts of marine parks on all stakeholders in South Australia. A substantial amount of evidence has already been received by the committee to that point and, for this reason, the committee decided to table an interim report based on the evidence taken on the initial proposed zones and then seek fresh evidence on the revised zones, and I will be talking to that in a moment.

The committee also intends to take evidence on the impacts of the draft management plans and impact statements released on 26 August 2012 for each of the proposed 19 marine parks. However, as I said, that is a matter for the next motion. It is important to acknowledge that this report is an interim report and it deals with that first proposal by the government rather than the subsequent proposal which is obviously an improvement on the original one, certainly in my view. The original purpose of the committee was to inquire into the marine parks in South Australia and in particular to consider the following points:

the scientific evidence regarding the design and management of the parks;

the detrimental effects for recreational fishers and commercial fishers;

possible detrimental effects on property values;

the reaction by the community and fishing groups about the consultation process;

an examination of interstate and international moves to limit the extent of sanctuary zones;

finding the correct balance between general marine park areas and no take sanctuary zones; and

how the management of the parks themselves will be funded.

The committee travelled to Cape Jervis, Fleurieu Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, Yorke Peninsula, Port Lincoln and Streaky Bay to receive evidence, as well as holding a number of meetings here in Adelaide. More than 70 witnesses gave evidence to the committee and there were 109 written submissions that were considered in total. It was quite a deal of evidence and members who were in the chamber yesterday would have seen the rather large pile on my desk here.

By way of an overview of the evidence, it was clear that many people saw their future livelihoods threatened by the introduction of sanctuary zones, in particular, which are the central feature of the marine park initiative, or at least one of the significant features. Many fishers believe that South Australia's well managed fisheries provide the necessary conservation and ecological outcomes without the necessity for such zones.

Some also thought that fishers were being unfairly targeted, noting the threats to the marine environment from other activities—for example, fertiliser and herbicide run-off from agricultural land, urban run-off and also mining activities—that were not being addressed in this context. They were not blamed necessarily but the evidence was presented to the committee that those things should also be considered for their impact on the marine environment.

A great deal of evidence presented to the committee focused on inadequacies in the consultation process centred on the local advisory groups (LAGs). The committee heard evidence from witnesses about a litany of problems in the process including inadequate information and mapping, inaccuracies and delays in meeting practice, flaws in the methods of collecting information, and the hijacking of the agenda both by interest groups and by the department itself it was suggested (Environment and Natural Resources). It was also told that local expertise was often ignored in the consultation process and the department had lost the confidence of the stakeholders involved in some cases.

Those are quite extraordinary things to say but that was some of the evidence presented to the committee. I should add that there was also a suggestion on more than one occasion that minutes were actually altered following meetings of the LAGs that did not reflect what actually occurred at those meetings. We were not able to substantiate that, and I do not point the finger at any individual, but I think it is important to acknowledge that those are very serious allegations that the committee heard and it should be acknowledged and every step taken for it not to occur in the future. If it is true, it is very concerning indeed.

The committee heard conflicting arguments about the management of fishery resources. On the one hand, a number of witnesses believed that the present management with its quotas and limited sanctuary zones is working as it stands. Some evidence was put that the department of environment and natural resources had failed to work with the fisheries division of the department of primary industries and resources and the South Australian Research and Development Institute in the marine park process, and that the department of environment and natural resources had not acknowledged the excellent management of fisheries in this state.

There was some conflicting evidence on that point, but that was presented to the committee. I think the points I have already made outline a theme, and that is that a number of people felt that the consultation process was clearly inadequate. That was one of the key findings that the committee reported.

I will now deal with the various findings and recommendations specifically made by the committee. The committee found that the majority of witnesses from each community affected by the proposals believed that local knowledge was ignored in many cases, data collection was inadequate and the process was, in their words, quite flawed. The committee recommended that the government follow the process set out by the Convention on Biological Diversity, that is, to take a bioregional threats-based approach rather than a spatial-mapping approach to establish the marine parks themselves. It also recommended that the benefits of each marine park should be clearly articulated prior to their establishment.

The committee also considered the detrimental effects to recreational fishers and the commercial fishing industry through the imposition of marine parks. Unsurprisingly, peak bodies in the fishing industry were extremely worried by the future viability of the industry by reason of the new sanctuary zones in particular. It was put to the committee that fish do not observe sanctuary zones. Prawns, for example, are a migratory species and, if they enter sanctuary zones, it means no income for fishers.

Concern was expressed about the value of compensation, suggesting that fishing businesses and equipment were being devalued by the very imposition of marine parks; that is, by having a marine park, the fishing business value itself suffers just by the very fact that it is subject to some of the restrictions that were proposed.

Coastal communities suggested that, in some cases, there would be significant impacts on the fishing industry and, indeed, the very economies of those local communities. The committee recommended that the government undertakes further consultation with commercial and recreational fishing interests and local communities to determine the impact on those communities.

There was much evidence from witnesses claiming that real property values in coastal areas might be affected. The committee found that evidence presented indicated that there was substantial disagreement, to be fair, about the likely impact on property values in regional areas. We did have arguments for and against on that particular point, but I think it is certainly fair to say that there was genuine concern amongst those affected about the impact on their particular property values.

I guess the thrust of the argument was that, in many of those coastal towns, one of the main recreational activities is fishing. People will typically have a holiday home, say, in Yorke Peninsula, for example. They will travel to the town with really the primary focus of going fishing for the week, or whatever it may be—a swim and that, of course, but fishing forms a significant part of their recreational plans. Many people argue that by simply not allowing it, or restricting it, in many cases, the value of their own properties would suffer. As I said, there was some dispute on that claim, but I think it is fair to say that it was sincerely held by the individuals who presented it.

I touched on this a moment ago, but one of the really concerning things—certainly for me, and I cannot speak for other members—that the report found was that there were many complaints, and I mean many complaints, by local communities and fishing groups regarding the consultation process associated with the implementation of marine parks. This was a very serious matter, of course.

Not surprisingly, however, the process was defended by the department, but the committee found that communities, as distinct from conservation advocates, believed that the local expertise of the local advisory groups (the so called LAGs) was largely ignored in the consultation process, or certainly not given due attention in a number of cases.

The committee noted that some groups were actually quite scathing about the consultation process and believed that the desired outcome had been predetermined prior to the commencement of the consultation. That was an allegation that the committee heard a number of times: that people felt very strongly that the outcome was determined prior to the consultation being in any way considered and, in some cases, even happening. I think that was very serious and insulting for people. Some people felt insulted by the fact that their opinion had been sought but not genuinely considered.

The committee recommended that any future zoning management plans be referred back to the local advisory groups for advice prior to implementation. I think that is only reasonable. The committee recommends that regional impact statements be undertaken prior to the release of management plans.

The committee investigated interstate and international moves to limit the extent of sanctuary zones and found that, while marine parks have been progressively adopted in other states, the proposed 42 per cent for South Australian waters is far in excess of the areas designated in other jurisdictions, with the exception of Queensland. The committee also recommended that the outer boundaries for marine parks in South Australia be substantially reduced in line with those in other Australian jurisdictions.

As to the question of the proportion of marine parks that should be sanctuary zones, the committee found that there was no unequivocal research available, and it was unclear what the proportion should be. It recommended that the government undertake broad-based consultation with all affected parties prior to establishing sanctuary zones. It also recommended that the government should not gazette sanctuary zones larger than the endorsed local area advisory group proposals for those particular sanctuary zones.

Evidence indicated that the department had not done any detailed analysis of the costing on the management of marine parks; indeed, I believe that was from their own words. There was other evidence, however, that ongoing funding will be critical to the success of the marine parks and, I believe the environment department said that themselves. This led to considerable uncertainty as to the future funding needs and levels. The committee recommended that neither commercial nor recreational fishers be responsible for the costs of the establishment or maintenance of marine parks.

I think that gives a brief outline of the findings of the committee and how it operated. As I said, I think the committee operated with a determination to try to find the truth, and I think the truth is that there are a lot of unhappy people; that is the simple truth of it. People are genuinely worried about the impact on their livelihoods; in many cases, these are salt of the earth, good-hearted, really decent people trying to make a living in their own towns, and they are really genuinely concerned about marine parks and particularly the no sanctuary zones being imposed on them.

I urge the government to consider the report. I am pleased that the government has obviously revised its original plans, and that will be the subject of my next very brief contribution. I think it is important that we acknowledge, as proposed at the time this committee was set up, the impact, certainly in the views of those people most affected, would have been very significant and, indeed, potentially devastating.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (17:22): I take the opportunity to place on the record a short response as one of the two government members on the select committee. The Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and I have attached our dissenting statement as tabled, if for no other reason than that we believe the government has simply got on with the job of continuing its consultations with the community and indeed improving on them following feedback that some people believe their voices had not been heard.

The continuation of that process will, no doubt, see the government release final marine park management plans before the end of the year, as outlined in August. The draft management plans and impact statements for each of the proposed 19 marine parks were released in August for public review and comment. In short, we believe this committee has been left behind.

When a select committee is set up, governments of any persuasion do not expect accolades and this select committee did not disappoint in that regard either. As to be expected in this important issue, there are passionate views on all sides. A responsible government knows it does need to consult as widely as possible, besides it being mandated in legislation, and indeed the government had every good reason to believe it was doing so and, as mentioned, has continued to consult more.

Also, as mentioned in the dissenting statement, the government believes that the marine park process is one of the most comprehensive public consultation processes ever undertaken in our state. Because consultation does not always equate to agreeing with everything that one puts forward, I acknowledge that many who gave evidence to the committee felt their views were not taken into account and, as such, the committee was an important avenue for those grievances, especially by those who were concerned about their livelihoods.

I am also pleased to say there was overwhelming consensus by those who gave evidence to the committee that they agreed with the concept of marine parks, which clearly was heartening for the future of our environment. As to be expected, the main grievances were around zones and no-take sanctuary zones. No government sets out to disadvantage its constituency and, as mentioned in our dissenting statement, the government has always acknowledged that the introduction of marine parks would have some effects on the commercial and recreational fishing sectors. It has gone to great lengths to minimise negative impacts.

What the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and I have done is to respond to the recommendations put forward by the other honourable members of the committee. We believe our responses are sound and based on information publicly available, whether it is on the issue of scientific evidence or the processes undertaken by the government.

The Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and I may not agree with our colleagues on the recommendations, if for no other reason than that government processes have superseded this interim report, but I acknowledge the work of the other committee members: the Hon. Dennis Hood as the Chair, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Terry Stephens and, for most of the committee, our President in this chamber, the Hon. John Gazzola. It is certainly an area he is passionate about, and he made an important contribution to the life of the committee. For a short time we also had the Hon. Paul Holloway as a member.

I would also like to join the Hon. Dennis Hood in thanking the research officer of the committee, Ms Geraldine Sladden, our committee secretary, Ms Leslie Guy and, for a few meetings at the beginning, Mr Guy Dickson. I also particularly want to acknowledge and thank all those who made both written submissions and gave evidence before the committee. I acknowledge that it is not always easy to travel to meetings, whether they be in Adelaide or in country South Australia, or to take time out of a busy life to fit in with the committee hearings.

As we now know, the Hon. Dennis Hood has moved a motion that will see this select committee reconvene with an extended term of reference to continue listening to those who wish to put their views on government processes. I am always happy to hear the views of our constituency; I believe it is our raison d'être before progressing any legislation. The fact that government processes, as required by the legislation, have progressed and that the final marine park management plans are expected by the end of the year, should, I believe, influence that following debate.

Ultimately, more than 10 years after this important issue was first mooted by a then Liberal government, is time to see certainty for recreational fishers, commercial fishers and the tourism industry. I know I will be joined by all in welcoming the final marine park management plans, which I understand are due to be released before the end of the year.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (17:27): As you know, Mr Acting President, I was appointed to this committee on 17 October, and the first meeting I attended on 20 November was when the draft report was actually noted. I was provided with the draft report only the previous day, so I will only make some brief comments. I understand that the committee heard that marine parks are being zoned for multiple uses, which means that the majority of the waters within the parks will still be available for people to undertake a range of recreational and commercial activities, including fishing.

The proposals released by the government this year included a little over 6 per cent of state waters in sanctuary zones. This is not expected to have a significant impact on the fishing industry—in fact, I am told the expected impact is around 1.7 per cent—yet this has not been acknowledged in the report. The committee has also not considered the benefits of marine parks, which are evidenced all around the world.

There have been over 30,000 South Australians involved in the consultation process undertaken by the government over the past three years, with 41 sessions conducted on marine parks. I have been advised that the government has received over 8,000 submissions on 19 marine park management plans, with the vast majority—85 per cent—supporting marine parks with sanctuary zones. The government has considered all submissions and will soon release the final marine park management plans.

The committee's report is somewhat dated, failing to fully consider the government-released draft sanctuary zones in April or the full suite of zoning released by the government in July, nor has the committee's report considered the marine parks management plans, which include independently prepared impact statements, which were released in late August.

Instead, the interim report relies on evidence received on preliminary zoning scenarios, rather than the draft zoning proposals that were released earlier this year. The committee has not considered this body of work and has instead relied on outdated information, making may of the recommendations superfluous.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:30): I move:

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Marine Parks in South Australia that its terms of reference be extended by inserting new paragraph 1A as follows:

1A. That the select committee inquire into and report upon—

(a) the government's proposed recent amendments to the draft management plans and impact statements for each of the proposed 19 marine parks in South Australia; and

(b) any other related matter.

I think the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars alluded to the fact that the government has obviously made some new announcements this year; that is obviously true. I alluded to that in my contribution, as did the Hon. Carmel Zollo. The purpose of this motion is so that the committee can examine the new proposal. We will do that, and I believe we will do it fairly and look at the impact.

I think, clearly, in many regards, it is a step in the right direction, but I think it is also very fair to say—and indeed, I met with some of them this morning—that there are still people who are very legitimately concerned about the impact that this new proposal will have, and the committee intends to examine it carefully. With those very few words, I indicate that I will be making a more substantial contribution when we resume in February, and I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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