HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 May 2014.)

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:48): The Greens will not be supporting this bill, which seeks to undo a number of sanctuary zones that are due to come into operation on 1 October. It is no secret that this bill can be described as a second bite at the cherry, or perhaps a last gasp attempt to try to modify the arrangements that were put in place after years of extensive community consultation.

The bill is clearly introduced by the honourable member at the behest of some elements in the commercial fishing industry who, if we are honest about it, do not like marine parks at all if it means there are any restrictions on where they can fish. I think we do need to be honest in this debate, what we are seeing is a last-ditch attempt to undo the work that has been done.

It is also no surprise to anyone that the arrangements that were developed were a compromise. It is probably fair to say that they made everyone unhappy. There were people, and I will add my name to their number, who do not think the legislation went far enough and we did not protect enough areas that were deserving of protection. Other people, such as the Hon. Michelle Lensink's constituents, thought that it was overly generous in the opposite direction. Everyone got less than they wanted.

Sadly, I cannot see this bill as anything other than part of an anti-environmental agenda on the part of the Liberal Party. I do not believe, in all honesty, you can say you believe in marine parks but undermine the very feature of those parks that protects the marine resources within them. I do not find that position internally consistent. If we look at the honourable member's Liberal colleagues in the federal parliament, it is like they say they believe in climate change and they then seek to undo absolutely everything that has been put in place to address it. You cannot have it both ways. Not to say that this government is perfect; I am not going to join that crowd. The cuts to the environment department have been a savage blow to conservation in this state. In relation to this bill, we just cannot support undoing the sanctuary zones that are yet to come into operation.

I know the Hon. Terry Stephens was keen for me to make a lengthy contribution so I will satisfy him in some way by putting on the record a couple of pieces of homespun philosophy that I have learnt in my lifetime of working in the conservation sector. The first one relates to how we should deal with protected areas, whether they be terrestrial or marine. The philosophy is very simple, it goes like this: easy in, hard out. In other words, we should make it as easy as possible to conserve areas for conservation and for the benefit of future generations and we should make it as hard as possible to undo those protections.

Easy in, hard out. That is exactly the approach that is taken in, for example, the National Parks and Wildlife Act in relation to the terrestrial environment. The government, the executive arm of government, can declare national parks but it takes the parliament to undeclare them or to shrink their size by altering their boundaries. It is a very sound principle of conservation—easy in, hard out.

The second bit of homespun philosophy is that, in my experience, decisions to conserve can be undone by future generations, but decisions to exploit very often cannot be undone. Also, the flip side of that coin is that if future generations decide that their grandparents (us) were overly enthusiastic about conservation and we protected too many areas then they can make that call, but they do not, they very rarely make those sorts of calls. Decisions to conserve are rarely regretted by future generations. What is regretted are decisions to miss opportunities and to fail to protect places that are worthy of protection.

This bill seeks to undo the environmental regime before it has even had a chance to come into operation. Depending on how the vote goes in relation to this bill we might get to the committee stage and we might go through park by park and we might need to test the evidence for each of the sanctuary zones to be undone, but as a matter of principle the Greens will not be supporting the bill at the second reading and we will not be supporting it at any subsequent stage either.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:54): I rise very briefly to speak on the Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill. The bill identifies 12 out of 84 zones that are to be converted from sanctuary zones to habitat protection zones, effective from 1 October of this year. At the outset, I wish to place on the record that I do not oppose marine parks; that said, I continue to hold concerns over the issue of sanctuary zones.

Sanctuary zones have the potential to impact businesses generally, not just the fishing industry. Regions such as Port Wakefield, Hardwicke Bay and Port Moorowie, to mention a few, rely on holiday makers and fishing enthusiasts to survive. They are towns built on the back of fishing. There is no question that fishing restrictions will have a huge impact on these businesses. The legislation will devastate townships like Port Wakefield.

Business owners cannot put their livelihoods on hold for five or ten years for a review. Once the damage is done, it cannot be undone. If these businesses go there is no question that the rest of the townships will follow. It is all well and good for the government to say that businesses in these districts can adapt to other opportunities like ecotourism, but not do anything constructive to help them achieve those goals.

A good example is at Port Wakefield where the government is already aware of an application for the construction of a marina development that will incorporate a retirement facility, commercial precinct and housing. As I understand it, roadblocks have been put in place by the Department of Environment every step of the way. I am advised that the comparisons of the economic impact that the Port Wakefield region is likely to face on an annual basis range between $1.4 million and $3.25 million. The $1.4 million, which I understand is intended to persist over some 20 years, was the figure arrived at by EconSearch, which were contracted by the government to undertake an impact assessment of the region. The $3.25 million was the figure arrived at by the fishing industry's own analysis.

I have to agree with the comments made at a recent briefing by Mr Bart Butson, a third generation fisher, that regardless of which figure is correct the loss of economic activity and jobs will be devastating to a small community with little wealth. It comes back to a whole-of-government approach. You cannot have the government espousing one thing and individual departments another.

The reality is not all businesses will be able to adapt to ecotourism. Not all businesses will be able to sustain the economic losses they are bound to be faced with. Businesses across the board are struggling to survive in today's economic climate as it is. We should not be doing all we can to seal their fate. There is absolutely no question that the issue of sanctuary zones is extremely vexed. Proponents and opponents of the government's legislation are equally critical of each other's position and there is very little consensus, in fact, they disagree on just about everything from scientific evidence and environmental impacts to the economic impacts.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink has been quite clear in her intent with this bill; that is, because of the way the legislation works she is unable to amend the zones themselves. The bill should send a clear message to the government that there is a problem with the boundaries and they need to fix it. I agree with her position entirely. For that reason, I will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:57): I will speak briefly today on the Hon. Ms Lensink's Marine Parks (Sanctuary Zones) Amendment Bill. I would like to thank the Hon. Ms Lensink for providing a briefing on her bill and for arranging a meeting with commercial fishing stakeholders, Wildcatch. I would also like to thank the office of the Hon. Ian Hunter, Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, for providing my office with comprehensive information about the proposed bill from its perspective.

Unfortunately I am unable to support the proposal at this time. Dignity for Disability believes that the small percentage of South Australian waters (6 per cent) that are now zoned marine parks do not need to be further scaled back. While the Wildcatch fishers told me they were reliant on parts of these zones for commercial fishing, I do not believe this can viably be the case at this point. Yes, some of the 6 per cent that are zoned marine parks contain very diverse and significant fish populations, but you would expect that to be the case.

We have to be proactive to protect our precious marine environment for our children, our children's children, and the generations that will follow that. Many conservationists and marine biology experts that advised on marine park zoning during the consultation process wanted up to 20 per cent of South Australian waters zoned as marine parks. I also understand that some 6,000 submissions were received and considered. There was clearly debate and there was compromise. We ended up with only 6 per cent of our waters zoned as marine parks.

If in 10 years we find that we do not need the scale of marine parks that we currently have, we can rezone, but to do so now is far too risky for our marine environment. We have already done untold damage to Gulf St Vincent through human activity since the English invaded the Adelaide Plains some 180 years ago. I do not think that we should risk any further damage to our marine environment, so Dignity for Disability will not be supporting the bill at this time.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (17:00): The government strongly opposes this bill, and perhaps against my better judgement I congratulate the Hon. Mark Parnell on his comments. I was going to say I agree with much of what he says, but I suspect he is just agreeing with me before I say it.

The bill seeks to significantly reduce environmental protection provided by our state's marine park network. Under this bill, some of the most iconic sites and unique creatures and habitats in our state will be at risk. There is some irony in the opposition campaigning to weaken this environmental protection legislation, particularly given that marine parks were first proposed by the Liberal government more than a decade ago. In fact, the underlying principles guiding the development of marine parks in this state were established by the Liberals. Now the Liberal Party is seeking to undo more than a decade of work and choosing to ignore the science and years of community consultation, but perhaps this is not surprising given what we are seeing from their federal Liberal colleagues in this area.

Australia has the world's third-largest marine estate. It is larger than the Australian landmass and extends from the tropical seas of the north to the subantarctic waters of the Southern Ocean. The former Labor government proclaimed at the time the world's biggest network of marine reserves, protecting more than 2.3 million square kilometres of ocean environment on 16 November 2012. The network was designed to protect habitat necessary to support many of the world's threatened and endangered animals, including green turtles, blue whales and southern right whales, Australian sea lions and whale sharks.

The previous federal Labor government used the best available science, talked to the public over a number of years, made and revisited plans based on community consultation and delivered the world's most comprehensive marine reserve network, with only around 1 per cent impact on commercial fisheries. During the 2013 election campaign, the federal Liberals released a fisheries policy that has already had devastating implications for commonwealth marine reserves.

To implement this policy, in December 2013 the federal Liberal government announced a marine reserves review which they have stated will 'restore confidence in the Commonwealth marine reserve planning process'. This federal review is nothing but another blatant attempt by the federal Liberal government to conduct a relentless campaign of environmental vandalism. To facilitate the review, the commonwealth marine reserves were reproclaimed, which invalidated the management plan signed off by the previous Labor government, to have the effect of stopping exclusion zones that would have come into effect in July 2014, while keeping the parks and their boundaries.

The federal Liberal government alleges that its intention to create new management plans to protect the marine environment was based on what they say is 'science and...consultation with stakeholders and local communities'. The federal Liberal government and particularly its leader have demonstrated a track record of ignoring and demonising science, famously declaring the accepted science on climate change to be 'crap' and then deciding that science is of so little value and such an annoyance to their policy positions that they became the first government in generations to completely do away with a science minister. A similar attitude is behind this bill: trying to dismantle a historic, science-backed conservation initiative with mindless politics.

The commonwealth marine reserves were only established after an unprecedented consultation process. There were five rounds of consultation on marine reserves over a period of four years, including more than 250 public stakeholder meetings around the country, attended by approximately 2,000 people. I understand that more than 750,000 people participated in the public consultation process and provided feedback. Environmental groups are quoted in the media as being dismayed that the federal government has quietly removed management plans from the world's largest marine-protected area network.

The South Australian Labor government does not share the state and federal Liberal contempt for the marine environment. The South Australian Labor government recognises that, with balance, conservation and economic prosperity can coexist. The South Australian government is committed to protecting South Australia's unique marine environment. This government has committed to providing an extra $1 million a year to ensure South Australia's network of 19 marine parks is effectively managed. This includes a doubling of the funding currently set aside for marine park monitoring to $750,000 and a doubling of the funding for habitat surveys and mapping in sanctuary zones to $100,000 a year, as well as more money to collect and process data.

The $1 million funding boost also includes new money to develop educational materials to promote the results of monitoring and targeted compliance activities in key monitoring locations. We want to protect our marine environment and we want to ensure this state has well-managed marine parks with effective monitoring and compliance programs. This is in stark contrast to the state and federal Liberals, who only want to rip apart the marine park network. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

The federal Liberals want to dump waste onto the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, a move that has attracted significant concern from the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and condemnation from environment groups. They also tried to delist more than 70,000 hectares of forest from Tasmania's world heritage area, a move that was rightfully rejected by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. The federal Liberal government has embarrassed Australia on the world stage and now the state Liberal Party is seeking to do the very same. We strongly oppose these moves.

The opposition has strongly criticised the consultation process for the government's establishment of marine parks, but I understand that the proposed changes reflected in this bill result from very limited conversation with interested people. I am sure that the opposition will have trouble outlining their formal consultation process and I am sure it will be embarrassing compared to the years of consultation that this government has undertaken in arriving at the marine parks as they currently stand.

The government's consultation has been very extensive. The consultation steps have been covered in this place on numerous occasions. However, for the benefit of members considering this legislation, I think it is important to outline some of the key steps. In 2006, there were three months of consultation on the marine parks bill. In 2009 statewide consultation occurred on the outer boundaries of the marine parks. From late 2009 to May 2011, 67 local advisory group meetings were held around the state, supported by numerous out of session informal meetings. In April 2012, draft sanctuary zones were released publicly, followed by the release of the full set of draft zoning in July 2012. Draft marine park management plans were also released for eight weeks' consultation, supported by 41 public information days and numerous meetings.

In addition, ongoing consultations occurred with the commercial and recreational fishing industries, the environmental sector, the Marine Parks Council, the scientific working group, local councils and a wide range of other stakeholders. More than 8,600 written submissions were received during the final round of community consultations, and as a result more than 50 amendments were made to the draft zones.

Of particular note is that 85 per cent of the respondents supported increasing the number of sanctuary zones to strengthen conservation outcomes. In spite of this overwhelming public support, the opposition has proposed a bill which actually decreases the number of sanctuary zones. This is clearly at odds with community expectations on this issue. I also note that a significant proportion of the advice from local communities and key stakeholders was incorporated in the final marine park zoning that we currently have. In fact, I am advised 83 per cent of the final sanctuary zones were derived from local advisory group advice, and yet the opposition still refers to this process as 'a complete sham'. The real sham is that the opposition appears to have only consulted with a select few in the development of a very ill-considered bill. This will undo years of work designed to benefit the entire state.

I understand that there are some who may be unhappy with the final marine parks plan. Notwithstanding the efforts to minimise the impact on commercial fishers, the government recognises that there may be some unavoidable impact on the industry. To deal with this, the government has made a firm commitment to buy out sufficient fishing effort through a voluntary market-based process. I can advise that the voluntary catch effort reduction program was completed late last year for five of the six fishing sectors affected.

The effort reduction targets for the relevant fisheries were calculated by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) aquatic sciences, using peer reviewed methodology and the best available data. SARDI consulted with the commercial fishing industry and used historical catch and effort figures, as well as additional information provided by the industry, to estimate the average displacement as a result of sanctuary fishing zone restrictions.

I am advised that Primary Industries and Regions SA then determined the amount of displacement catch effort that should be sought for removal during the voluntary catch effort reduction program. For information, it is worth pointing out that the reduction targets set by fisheries are as follows: for the central zone abalone, 38 quota units or just over 3 per cent of the total; for western zone abalone, 93 quota units, again just over 3 per cent of the total; for southern zone rock lobster, 40 pots or one-third of 1 per cent of the total; for northern rock lobster, 225 pots or 5.7 per cent of the total; for the marine scale fishery, 12 licences or just under 4 per cent of the total; and, for charter, six licences or 5.2 per cent of the total.

These catch effort reduction targets have been achieved in the initial phase for charter marine scale fish western zone abalone, northern rock lobster and southern zone rock lobster, and I am advised that negotiations with central zone abalone are continuing. Re-establishing fishing access to some of the sanctuary zones would be ridiculous, given the amount of effort and public monies recently expended on the voluntary catch effort reduction program.

The opposition has also made a number of claims about the supposed economic impact that will result from the implementation of fishing restrictions in sanctuary zones on 1 October 2014. In speeches to this place there were some very specific estimates of suggested impacts on some fisheries. For example, the quoted impact for the rock lobster fishery is taken from a report prepared for industry by Mr Ian Knuckey in 2012 on the potential impacts of the draft management plans. I understand that the government considered this report in detail, together with information provided during the public consultation period, and as a result draft sanctuary zones at Cape Du Couedic and Cape Borda were significantly reduced in size to further reduce impact on the rock lobster and abalone industries.

The Cape Du Couedic zone was decreased by 67 per cent and the Cape Borda by 35 per cent, which reduced estimated impact on commercial fishing in the Western Kangaroo Island Marine Park by 60 per cent, whilst still maintaining a conservation outcome at this iconic biodiversity and tourism hot spot. The final sanctuary zones have been available since November 2012, yet the opposition has used old estimates on sanctuary zones that do not currently exist, but in the context of this debate that is hardly surprising. Using the wrong information, peddling misinformation and misrepresenting the facts has become the preferred mode of operation of the opposition in large aspects of this debate.

They also like pretend there is no science supporting marine parks. Either that, or they simply choose not to understand the science. Marine parks are about conserving areas in their most pristine state. They are about ensuring we protect some of our state's waters most unique and valuable marine assets before they are damaged. This is a real point of difference. Marine parks in South Australia are not only set up to address directly current damage but are designed to protect our marine environment before the damage is done.

The Liberals approach of 'wait until it's broken to fix it' will result, if this bill is passed. It puts our environment at risk and is completely at odds with the overwhelming scientific evidence available on marine parks. As others have done before me, I urge honourable members in this place to consider thoroughly the science on marine parks before making a decision. South Australia's marine parks have been developed on the best and soundest local, national and international science.

As recently highlighted by the Minister for Environment in this place, marine parks have also been developed with the input of our state's most respected marine scientists. The scientific working group is comprised of 12 independent, highly-regarded scientists who have expertise in a range of scientific fields, such as marine ecology, marine biology and marine oceanography, yet the opposition, particularly the shadow minister, refuses to acknowledge their contribution.

A large range of scientific and other materials was made publicly available during the marine park planning process. Some of this material included: the 14 design principles that provide the scientific basis for the marine park program were developed after consideration of three decades worth of Australian international marine protected areas scientific and management experience; a complete technical report explaining the process of determining the outer boundaries of the proclaimed marine parks; value statements for each marine park were released, which provided complete information about ecological, social and economic values of each park; and, comprehensive ecological, social and economic impact statements were prepared for each park.

These documents and a wealth of other scientific information have been readily available on the marine parks' website, and I query whether the opposition, particularly the shadow minister, has consulted much of it at all. I also have a list here which, if time permitted, I would read out completely. It consists of pages of scientific papers and reports that have informed the development of marine parks in South Australia. If any honourable members are interested, I would be more than happy to give them the list, but many in the opposition would dismiss this, as the federal government has in its attack on science.

The science on marine parks is very clear. Relying only on addressing existing damage is not the best way to protect our marine environment. A management system that is a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine parks (CARS) produces the best results. That is what the science tells us. If the opposition is to continue their attack on marine parks, I think that it is incumbent on them to identify the flaws in the science that give rise to the marine parks. They need to identify the authority and cite what better science they use for their conclusions. Unless they can properly demonstrate the flaws in the accepted science the government relies upon, their current campaign and, indeed, this bill will be seen as a poorly thought-out political stunt.

As I mentioned earlier, the development of marine parks is based on the conservation of ecologically important areas, and sanctuary zones are critical to the marine park networks. These zones are much more than 'no fishing' areas. They ensure against the emerging impacts of climate change, coastal development and increasing demand for natural resources. Removing sanctuary zones is like having a car without an engine. Sanctuary zones are also good for fishing and fishing tourism. They underpin the health of the sea and protect the places where fish breed and grow. Sanctuary zones are also good for the state as a whole. The bill before us, however, proposes to reduce the protection for 12 sanctuary zones, leaving only 4 per cent of our state's water in sanctuary zones. This is a reduction in protection of one-third. Removing these protections, as proposed by the opposition, would place at risk numerous areas of significant ecological importance.

I draw members' attention to some of what is at risk. In the Nuyts Archipelago Marine Park (or park 2), the Nuyts Reef and Isles of St Francis sanctuary zones will help protect and conserve breeding sites for Australian sea lions; habitats for birds, such as the endangered osprey, rare rock parrot, rare Cape Barren geese and the little penguin; biodiversity hotspots known for their local fish species; King George whiting spawning habitats; and Australia's short-tailed shearwater breeding colony.

In Investigator Marine Park (park 4), the Pearson Island group sanctuary zone will help protect and conserve a variety of mammals, fish, birds and algae; large fish that are becoming uncommon in such heavily fished locations; and species of conservation concern, such as the white-bellied sea eagle and the great white shark.

In the Sir Joseph Banks Group Marine Park (park 6), the Salt Creek sanctuary zone will help protect and conserve a complete ecosystem, including the Salt Creek estuary mouth, adjacent sand flats, seagrass meadows, and deep water sandy plains habitats. It will also protect coastal habitats used by at least five migratory shorebird species protected under international treaties.

In the Neptune Islands Group (Ron and Valerie Taylor) Marine Park (park 7), the North Neptune Island sanctuary zone will help protect and conserve globally significant great white shark habitat and aggregation area; South Australia's most important New Zealand fur seal pupping site; Australian sea lion sites; key destinations for protected migratory seabirds; and a habitat for endangered white-bellied sea eagles and the endangered fairy tern. The Neptune Islands Group is known as the Ron and Valerie Taylor Marine Park, and I will quote from Valerie Taylor about marine parks. She recently said:

South Australia has so much to offer underwater. The range of biodiversity is just incredible. The opposition wants to undermine sanctuary zones and destroy it all.

I think that is a very telling quote for our debate.

In the Upper St Vincent Gulf Marine Park (park 14), the Clinton Wetlands sanctuary zone will help protect and conserve habitats critically important to the entire gulf; nursery and breeding grounds for blue swimmer crabs, western king prawns, whiting, garfish and snapper; and some of the most significant seagrass meadows in the entire marine park network.

In the Encounter Marine Park (park 15), sanctuary zones will help protect and conserve very important habitats for the protected leafy sea dragon; protected habitats for shorebirds; seagrass meadows, which are nurseries for commercial and recreational fish species such as King George whiting; habitats supported by strong currents and reefs that have a very diverse range of fish species; and regionally important settlement areas for many species.

Finally, in the Western Kangaroo Island Marine Park, park 16, the Cape Borda and Cape Du Couedic marine zone will help protect and conserve not only tourism experiences for the area but one of only two known breeding sites for Australian fur seals, eight breeding sites for New Zealand fur seals and nesting sites for the endangered white-bellied sea eagle.

I am advised that loss of protection for habitats of some of our most iconic and ecologically significant plant and animal species could compromise the integrity of the entire marine parks network. This is what the opposition is prepared to risk. The opposition appears to place no importance whatsoever on the conservation of these areas.

As I mentioned earlier, it is also important that members consider that these changes from the opposition have been proposed without any broad public consultation. When you compare that to the massive consultation that has occurred previously for the marine parks, it ought not be supported without greater consultation. Nor has there been any proper consultation with the majority of key stakeholders and other bodies such as the Marine Parks Council.

Members may recall that in 2010 the government amended the Marine Parks Act at the request of the fishing industry to ensure that management plans could not be amended without parliamentary scrutiny. This amendment was made to ensure that critical decisions about marine park zones could not be the result of secret deals behind closed doors. In fact, the shadow minister was a member of the Select Committee on Marine Parks. This committee repeatedly advised of the importance of ensuring all community members were fully involved in the development of marine parks and management plans; and now the opposition, who supported this amendment and the select committee, proposes to amend zoning without undertaking proper community and stakeholder consultation.

This bill also provides that the marine park management plans that include sanctuary zones must be reviewed every two years. This is a ludicrous and extraordinary proposal and is evidence that the opposition has failed to consider the impact on business and local communities. A two-year review cycle would effectively mean that marine parks would be in a constant state of review. This type of uncertainty would severely disadvantage the full range of business interests working in marine parks. Future developments, aquaculture businesses, recreational fishers, tourism operators, local communities and even the vast majority of commercial fishers would also be severely damaged by this ongoing cycle. There would be no certainty for anyone and there would be no ability to implement long-term arrangements to secure their economic futures.

The opposition has failed to consider the potential impact of this bill on a wide range of stakeholders and local communities. The Marine Parks Act already establishes proper consultation to assess the effectiveness of marine parks. Management plans must be reviewed within 10 years, and it is through this process that the government, stakeholders and the community can properly determine whether any changes are needed to the zoning or other management arrangements.

During the shadow environment minister's speech referring to marine park 14, she stated, 'I do not believe that there are any environmental credentials for the way the whole process took place.' With ridiculous comments like that, it is hard to see how this bill can be supported given the lack of consultation that has taken place.

I know that the shadow environment minister regularly interjects in this chamber and castigates the Greens for preferencing Labor in some seats. With such blatant anti-environment and anti-science views as expressed in this bill, and on such an important issue like this, it is little wonder that the Liberal Party in South Australia has trouble attracting any support from those who care about the environment.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Marine parks represent a wealth of opportunities for our state that the opposition refuses to admit. Marine parks will complement our existing measures to manage our fisheries and to boost our state's reputation as a source of clean, healthy seafood. They will also ensure that marine areas are protected for current and future generations.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Mr President, I know the opposition do not consider this a particularly important issue and are making light of it and having fun and laughing, but I think this is a very important issue for our state. For the reasons presented here—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Just give your speech; do not react.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I know that members opposite are keen to try to make a mark on these sorts of issues, and I know that the shadow minister in particular is concerned at the low mark she gets in the annual media rankings of various ministers, but this issue is far too important to play politics with. There are much better issues to try to make a mark on. For the reasons presented here today the government opposes this bill in its entirely, and condemns the Liberal Party's ongoing campaign to erode environmental protection laws in this state.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:25): I rise to make a very brief contribution to this bill on behalf of Family First, and I apologise to members that my name was not on the whipping sheet; it was an oversight.

Very briefly, I indicate Family First supports the bill as proposed by the Hon. Ms Lensink. Members would be aware that I was the chairman of the select committee that looked at the establishment of marine parks originally, and then at the changing boundaries that were done subsequent to the public outcry over the initial proposal for marine parks as they stood. Two things stood out to me as chairperson of that committee. First of all, in all my time in parliament—it is my ninth year now in this place—I had not seen such public outcry to any single issue.

Members would remember that there was the Burnside Town Hall meeting, where it was estimated there were approximately 2,000 people. I was there that night, and I would have thought it was probably in excess of that. As I said, there was enormous public outcry against the original proposal. Yes, the heat has gone out of it to some extent, because I think the government saw the response from people who would be affected—and even from people who would not be directly affected—and, as result of that, changed the boundaries substantially, which I think perhaps not all but most members would support.

As I said, two things stood out to me on that committee. We have heard a lot of talk about the extensive consultation that took place. Any member of that committee could, I think, reasonably walk away from their time on that committee with some very serious questions about the consultation process. We had witnesses claim that minutes from the so-called LAG meetings were actually doctored, changed or went missing. These are very, very serious allegations which are all documented in the report—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is the problem, sir. We have just heard from the government that they are 'made up', but there were several allegations to that effect. They are not just single allegations; we heard of at least half a dozen people. I cannot recall exactly how many, but there were at least half a dozen, possibly in the order of 10 or 12.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Doesn't make it right.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: So the allegations are all lies? I am afraid I do not accept that. These are serious allegations and I think the consultation process was lacking in many regards. While it was broad—and credit where credit is due, it was a broad consultation process—there were substantial holes in the process. People did not come to that committee and tell lies: they told the truth.

The other thing that is difficult about the entire marine parks process—and this is the second point that the committee consistently heard—is that people were worried about the impact on their economic livelihood. We heard from the various district councils, we heard from the industry, we heard from recreational fishers and tourism-affected businesses, right across the spectrum, that they were genuinely concerned about the impact on their livelihoods.

I think that in the current situation with the state economy we need to be very careful about anything that has a potentially negative impact on the level of employment in our state. That is something I have grave concerns about. I think there will be, and the government acknowledges that there will be, a negative impact on economic activity as a result of the marine parks, and that is regrettable.

Finally, there has been a great deal of debate about the science; what we saw in the committee was that there was a good deal of disagreement about the science. Yes, there was science from the environment department. You would expect them to have their point of view; they were themselves pushing the agenda from the start. Equally there were scientists presented by the industry—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Non-scientists.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: They were not non-scientists; they have PhDs in the field. How can they be non-scientists? They are PhD-qualified people in the particular area of science we are talking about.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Name the studies.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Name the studies? Off the top of my head I will.

The PRESIDENT: Let's not engage in any debate, Hon. Mr Hood.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will not respond to that interjection, sir. It is out of order; that is right. There were questions raised about the science and I think it is something that deserves further inquiry. The main allegation, of course, was that the approach has not been based on a threats-based approach, which has been something the industry has called for. Regardless of all that, I think the issue has a long way to run yet. As I indicated at the start, Family First supports the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:30): I rise to make some remarks. I would like to start by thanking my colleagues in this place for their contributions: the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the Hon. Kyam Maher and the Hon. Dennis Hood. In due course I will respond to some of the comments they have made. At the outset, I remind the chamber of the obligations of Australian jurisdictions. In a letter from the Hon. Tony Burke MP, former federal minister for sustainability, environment, water, population and communities, dated 25 January 2011, he is referring to the targets which are required in relation to marine parks under the Convention of Biological Diversity, otherwise known as 'the Convention'. He says:

The biodiversity targets recently agreed under the Convention are contained in the Convention's new Strategic Plan. That Plan notes that all targets are 'aspirations for achievement at the global level and a flexible framework for the establishment of national or regional targets'. As such, the specific targets are not binding on Australia. The Australian Government does not interpret the target that you are referring to (target 11) in the new Strategic Plan of the Convention as requiring at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas to be strictly protected as no-take areas.

The government often refers to the issue of the length of time of consultation, and that is true, but the truth of the matter is that there were the initial out of boundaries which were put out—and I have been through all of this before, I am not going to repeat it all—the large zones that were put out as, I believe, an ambit claim which scared the living daylights out of most of South Australia which resulted in a so-called reset process in April 2012.

The Hon. Dennis Hood has referred to the local advisory group process, and that was established following the great big zones that scared the living daylights out of most of South Australia and all of the input into that. So, after years of trying to express their views to the government this was leaving people quite cynical and tired. What we had in that April 2012 reset process was that the local advisory groups, which were representative of all the stakeholders in the regions including the conservation sector, some of them had come up with unanimous proposals, some had come up with some which were majority, but by and large I think they were all majority. Quite frankly, if the government had gone with that position we would not be here debating this issue now.

What happened was that there was a rather cynical collection of stakeholders who were numerically in favour of having larger zones. There was only one representative of the commercial sector there who objected a number of times and who was told later that minutes did not exist, Minutes were then obtained under freedom of information by the leader of the Liberal Party, Steven Marshall, which that representative said were incorrect as well. So, the government has form on this and it is no surprise that they try to hide behind saying that this is all about conservation when in fact they have gone through an unconscionable process to land at this position and have the Greens complicit in their pocket on this issue.

So, at a whim of a small group of people who happened to be invited to attend that reset meeting in April 2012, the boundaries were changed. Again, we have this bogus kind of consultation that the government talks about, which was not consult and decide, it was announce and defend, because there were absolutely minimal changes over that six-month period from April 2012 as a result of them being advised of the reset process.

There have been broken commitments, and I would just like to quote a couple of them. On 29 January 2009 the then minister for the environment, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, wrote to commercial fishing licence holders. I am not going to read the two pages, but I will just read several paragraphs which are germane to this debate. He says:

There will, however, be some small zones within each park where conservation is a priority and where resource extraction and certain other activities will not be allowed.

Under a few items, point 3:

The following commercial fishing opportunities will be maintained within marine parks;

It goes on:

(b) Rock lobster fishing in important lobster fishing blocks, specifically:

i) west of Kangaroo Island;

ii) around the toe of Yorke Peninsula; and

iii) between Coffin Bay and the Thorny Passage on the lower Eyre Peninsula.

(c) Existing haul net fishers in the following key locations:

i) shallow waters (less than 5 metres) at the Upper Spencer Gulf Marine Park;

ii) shallow waters (less than 5 metres) of the Upper Gulf St Vincent Marine Park; and

iii) shallow waters (less than 5 metres) of the Franklin Harbour Marine Park.

Another one from one of the departmental officers who went on the ABC South East, Mr Chris Thomas, who says:

We just need to work out with the community where some small areas we can put aside for the long-term conservation of our habitats and marine species. So, through a three-year process of consultation, we can certainly minimise any impact on commercial and recreational fishers, while still achieving a solid conservation outcome. So, it is about getting that balance between conservation and use, which is a three-year task.

Then further he says:

…I guess the important thing is, we need to make sure that the community, which holds valuable information, particularly about use and activity, that we capture that information and we build it into a marine parks program…trying to determine where are the really important fishing spots, so we don't actually end up putting them in no-take areas.

Then he talks about trying to minimise displacement of commercial fishers. The economic impact on regions was the subject of an EconSearch report which was commissioned by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources dated 20 August 2012. In the executive summary, under 'Economic Impacts', it states:

In summary, the proposed draft zoning is expected to have the following economic impacts on the following sectors of the regional economy: potential positive impact in the tourism sector in the medium to long-term; neutral impact in the aquaculture, property, marine infrastructure and operations, mining and coastal development sectors; and short, medium and long-term negative impacts in the commercial fishing sector.

At that point I pause to note that the government's own report identifies that it is the commercial fishing sector which is the one that will be taking the greatest economic impact in the implementation of these zones. Under the heading 'Commercial Fishing' it says:

In aggregate, it was estimated that the impact of marine park zoning will generate the following loss of regional economic activity on an ongoing basis:

Approximately $12.6 million in gross state product (GSP) which represents 0.02 per cent of the state total…

Approximately 124 fte jobs…

Approximately $7.89 million in household income…

Impacts are based on SARDI's average annual displaced catches…

Under 'Tourism' it says:

…the perception that recreational fishing opportunities will be restricted by implementing 'no-take' zones is real.

That goes to vindicate the select committee establishment. Under 'Coastal Development' it says:

Marine parks will not prevent coastal developments approved under the Development Act.

I think this is relevant to the fact that development is one of the main contributors to harming our marine environments. Under 'Social Impacts', it says:

The main group impacted within these communities will be commercial fishing. Commercial fishing is one of the four top industry sources of regional employment for all but two economic regions (Upper Spencer Gulf and Fleurieu & Coorong), and contributes significantly fewer jobs than does tourism in all but two economic regions (Lower Eyre Peninsula and Franklin Harbour)...Most of the sanctuary zones are in low use areas for recreational fishing...with quite localized impacts in six marine parks (Far West Coast, West Coast Bays, Upper Spencer Gulf, Eastern Spencer Gulf, Encounter and Lower South East Marine Parks). A critical factor in determining the ultimate impact of marine parks is how well local communities are able to adapt to change and how cohesive they are in supporting each other through the change.

Further, it has a table (table 4) which lists the specific marine parks and states that the highest impacts will be within the Nuyts Archipelago and the Encounter Bay marine parks.

Wildcatch Fisheries, who were represented at the recent briefing, have done a summary which I think is useful to read into the record:

Commercial seafood harvesters rely on a healthy, unpolluted, productive marine environment to maintain their livelihoods and support their families; hence conservation of marine biodiversity is their number one priority.

The private member's bill proposes to remove 12 high impact sanctuary zones out of a total of 84; a minor amendment that will reduce the regional impact by more than half while going a long way to restoring the community stewardship necessary for a successful marine park network.

The Department for Environment—

the following words are underlined—

did not follow the accepted guidelines for establishing marine protected areas by identifying threats and risks. The process and outcome became purely political, therefore politically is the only way it can be corrected.

I think that that is a very useful statement, because if the government had taken the opportunity—it could correct these zones if it wished—we would not be here debating this issue. I have been forced in effect to stick up for regional South Australia and try to have some amendments made.

Local advisory groups appointed by the Minister for Environment were established with a very diverse cross-section of the local community. These 12 high-impact areas are representative of the minister and Department of Environment's willingness to ignore the recommendations of the local advisory groups. The impact on the regional coastal towns has been assessed by the Department of Environment's own commissioned report undertaken by EconSearch, which I have already referred to.

If I can just refer to some correspondence I have received from Mr Andrew Ferguson of Ferguson Australia, who said:

The only...impact of these sanctuary zones is to impact on sustainable, renewable, high-value, export fisheries. No-where else in...this country, or internationally for that matter, have we seen such an approach adopted. Is there no regard for State fisheries managers who have spent years of research to produce harvest strategies for the setting of sustainable [total allowable catches] etc.?

At this point, I might interpose and say that South Australia's fisheries are sustainable and well managed by PIRSA Fisheries, and this has been something that has been completely ignored by the government. He goes on to say:

The Premier states that 6% of state waters are to be closed to sanctuary zones but forgets to mention this targets over 30%of highly productive fishing grounds within the 6%.

This is important because it goes to the issue of sustainable fisheries management, and that in order to be sustainable effort is best rotated over the broadest possible area so, if you like, you give those areas a rest, but if you close those off then that reduces that opportunity. Mr Ferguson goes on to say:

…the process to establish the quantum of displaced commercial fishing effort, and its subsequent removal, was undertaken within an extremely compressed time frame.

This is a reference to the period April to November or December 2012. Wildcatch has recently written to the minister, and I will quote from their letter from 5 June. They say the following:

The persistence of the Department for Environment, Water & Natural Resources (DEWNR) to ignore the outcomes of the Ministers own appointed Local Advisory Groups process only highlights a lack of integrity; opinions supported by the findings of the Legislative Council Select Committee on Marine Parks in South Australia. Unfortunately, this bullish process has alienated key stakeholders and irreparably undermined the local community stewardship required to successfully manage extensive marine park zoning.

WFSA fully supports that any catch/effort displaced by Marine Park zoning (commercial & recreational) must be removed to ensure sustainability of the state fishery resource.

And so on. The Premier has highlighted his own lack of understanding of how marine parks should work in his recent replies in the House of Assembly question time. He said on 22 May:

The ambition of the marine parks scheme for South Australia is not to cost jobs: it is to actually grow jobs in regional South Australia.

Yet his own EconSearch report, which was commissioned in 2012, says that there will be a loss of 124 FTEs. He then goes on to talk about urban development, run-off from agriculture, fishing and other activities. He says it is how bait is left behind in fishing grounds, ropes are left behind, lines are left behind. These are things that are managed through other means already. Certainly, the issues of urban development and run-off from agriculture are not remotely addressed by these marine parks.

He referred to Gulf St Vincent and the damage that has been done to the marine environment. It is an interesting point to note Gulf St Vincent, because we know that there has been seagrass loss and that has not had anything to do with fishing. That has been to do with stormwater and wastewater that runs into the gulf. Indeed, it was one of the areas that Karen Edyvane covered in her report, which really did outline the science, and I have spoken about this before. In the late 1990s she identified Gulf St Vincent as one of the biodiversity hotspots and yet it was completely omitted from the outer boundaries and it was completely omitted from the sanctuary zones. I think that just goes to show that there is no scientific integrity. They have ignored their own advice.

The Premier then went on to talk about regions being able to promote themselves to the world and businesses on the West Coast which will promote themselves as having grown their fish in marine parks. Yet this again is contradicted. I would like to quote from Dr Gary Morgan, an individual who is consulted by other countries around the world in establishing marine parks. He is quite involved in the issue of overseas marketing and he says the following:

On the issue of the continued claims that commercial fishers will benefit from being able to claim their product was caught in a marine park…I was a guest speaker at the Australia/China Business Council's Food Summit in Sydney on Friday—

so this was about 24 May or a bit earlier—

(…Barnaby Joyce and Craig Emerson were also there) and there was a lot of discussion around the 'image' that Australia projects in China and what 'Brand Australia' means in an agribusiness environment.

The issue of marine parks was briefly brought up in this context and the general reaction from the Chinese side was that product labelled as being caught in a marine park would be seen as a negative influence because of the confusion it would create. They think ALL of Australia is pristine and would question why fish caught in a marine park is any better than one that is not and would anyway consider it 'bad' to catch fish in a marine park because marine parks in China are strictly no-go areas.

I had discussions later with Mrs Jihong He, the President of the China Food Association who confirmed that promoting things like regional branding, marine parks and the like would create enormous confusion in the market.

Incidentally…the Australian rock lobster industry…now accounts for over 10% of Australia's total food exports to China, which makes it larger in this market than either the wine or dairy industry.

As a major export industry not only for the State but for Australia, it worries me that comments such as this coming from Government officials…could undo a lot of the work the industry is doing (with DFAT and Austrade as well as with New Zealand) around branding and marketing.

EconSearch looked at some of the environmental impacts, and table 3.1 on page 11 of that particular report has quite an extensive list. Under the title 'Extraction of living resources' we have examples of uses as fishing activities, water extraction (for instance, desalination) and aquaculture. Under 'Modification of fauna behaviour' is berleying, mammal interactions, including noise and provisioning trawler bycatch discards.

Under 'Pollution of water/sediments' we have industrial discharges, wastewater, stormwater, coastal and catchment land use and spills; under 'Modification or destruction of habitat' we have coastal engineering (such as marinas, pipelines, dredging, trawling and mining). Under 'The introduction of pest species and diseases' we have shipping, recreational fishing and boating, imported products and aquaculture. Under 'Climate change' is a broad range of activities, mainly land based, that result in the generation of greenhouse gases, acidification, temperature change and sea level rise.

I note that that list, which I think is probably quite a comprehensive list, also includes berleying, yet berleying is allowed within marine park sanctuary zones, while scientific research has been deemed illegal and requires a permit. I have had some feedback since I tabled the bill from some of the recreational fishing sector, who have said that, in particular, the Investigator Marine Park, sanctuary zone 2 at Pearson's Island, is a huge tourism charter area, and for recreational fishing also provides shelter.

Most of Thorny Passage was agreed upon by the LAG, and that is not included in this particular bill in any case. For the North Neptune Islands, which the Hon. Kyam Maher referred to, the response is:

This is unbelievable to think it can be a sanctuary zone. It's used by all fishing groups, including the shark diving crews. Fishing is what the shark diving crews do when they are waiting for the sharks to turn up. A massive impact on their business, the area provides great shelter with the anchorages. It's hard to understand how we are not allowed to feed dingos, but are allowed to burley and tease the most dangerous predator in the water (great white sharks) and then say we are not changing the behaviour of this species.

I note that the CSIRO has said that berleying does in fact change the behaviour of great white sharks. Rapid Head, in Encounter Marine Park, is a very important launching area for recreational fishers.

That gets me on to the issue of RecFish, which I understand oppose this bill, and that is because they have a particular view about what happens in Gulf St Vincent. This issue was put directly to the Director of Fisheries, Professor Mehdi Doroudi in the marine parks select committee. When I said to him, 'You would be aware that RecFish have been critical to do with garfish management in the top of the gulf, which they say justifies the sanctuary zone,' he said, 'I do not agree with their position, and I have been in contact with them.' He goes on to talk about a range of management measures that have been put in place.

A recreational fisher, who has extensive knowledge of fishing has said to me that, in relation to RecFish's support for that zone, the chairman is under the belief that the zone will provide significant stock management benefits through additional protection for spawning or juvenile fish, but this is not supported by scientific research. The previous officer of RecFish, which used to be known as SARFAC, is Mr Trevor Watts. He sent me an email in response to the tabling of this bill in May, stating:

I have just read your [marine park] amendment bill, thank you for sending it…I still have an interest in fishery management in SA and have been appalled and ashamed at the way SARFAC [that is RecFish SA] have conducted themselves since my retirement.

SARFAC had a good reputation with the media and public and was respected by Government but we never expected to be liked because anglers views were always different and that they felt they were always 'dudded' by those in power. And there is plenty evidence to support that.

Along with the now retired Chairman, we together since 1998 and before spent most of our time gaining the public's respect with professionalism and expertise. I now read this as all going down the drain.

I note that a fair chunk of the government's commitments to environment spending in the election and in the budget relate to recreational fishing, which speaks to me of a stinky deal, particularly at a time when we have record debt levels. Quite frankly, some of that funding would be better off being spent on re-establishing seagrasses in the gulf. What I say to people who may be involved in RecFish SA is that, if you care for your reputation, run for the hills, run now, and run fast.

It has got to the point where Mr Holmes, the CEO of the department, in his recent remarks in relation to large funding cuts to the department, has said that the public will have to become primary custodians of marine parks, which is certainly what we have been saying for some time. It is hard to understand how those regional communities which have been so mistreated by this government are going to be remotely interested in dobbing in anyone because they are very cynical.

The Greens, I think it is fair to say, have for many years seen campaigns as a mode of conservation. What I would like to say to them is that the model of Landcare is the one that has been sustainable in many ways over many years and imposing a 'we know best' approach, which is what DEWNR did, is going to result in a backlash. I think that, in some ways, there are DEWNR staff who, from what I have been told, would certainly have breached public sector codes in some of the things they said and did in this whole process.

I think the modus operandi for this campaign style does not work, and it leads to the term 'green' being a pejorative term. Most of us would like to say that we are green. We recycle and, if you are a landowner, you try to preserve your soils and your native vegetation. But this program, primarily between this process and NRM, has led to the massive loss of confidence in DEWNR by the right wing of the Labor Party, and we see those cuts now, which are being implemented. We have seen the right wing Treasurer making jokes in budget lockups about getting rid of the department, so I think that is a message for the conservation sector that they need to work more collaboratively in the future rather than allowing this 'we know best' approach.

In response to some of the remarks that were made, the Hon. Mark Parnell misrepresented me when he said that this was at the behest of the commercial industry. It has not just been the commercial industry; there have been recreational fishers and regional representatives who have also spoken to me. I note that, even in the government's own report, they identify that the biggest impact will be on the commercial sector. He also said, quite mischievously, that the commercial sector does not like marine parks. That is just not true in any way, shape or form; in fact, some of them have actively campaigned for marine parks. This process, I think, was overtaken by some agendas within the environment department.

I have also talked about the furphy of the long consultation. The Hon. Mark Parnell talked about compromise. Well, a lot of people compromise with the LAG process. In my second reading explanation, I went through a whole range of zones I had not included in the bill because some people had said that they were not very happy but that they could live with it, and those regional communities have already compromised.

We are at the point where decisions are being made about closing fish factories, selling vessels and shutting down operations. Be it on the head of the Greens and this Labor government if changes are not made to the boundaries.

He has also—and the government, as well: they are one on this—tried to portray this as anti-environment. It is not anti-environment. Quite frankly, the Edyvane approach was not used from the start. We have not used a threats-based approach. The major impact that is going to be implemented when these come into force on 1 October is on fishing. It would be nice if the honourable member would speak to people who understand fisheries management and how they are sustainable and also speak to people in regional communities who have undertaken measures over the years to implement fisheries management so that those stocks are sustainable.

This is where the Hon. Mark Parnell and I really see this approach to conservation quite differently. He talked about easy in, hard out. I can understand why the conservation sector feels that way because there are probably numerous examples over the years where the environment has lost out to things. But there is a major difference between terrestrial and marine conservation. The biggest threats to terrestrial biodiversity are land clearance and invasive pest species.

We have set aside parks. If anybody goes walking around Morialta Conservation Park or Mount Lofty conservation park, or a number of conservation parks, you can see why people did not necessarily want to use those as arable land because they are so steep. Historically, the legacy of some of the earlier proclaimed terrestrial parks that we have are there because they were not really of much use for growing things on. Now we are at the point where in the Adelaide Hills we need to revegetate if we are going to maintain those species.

A lot of our marine environments are pristine and that is not going to change in a lot of cases because of fishing. It is going to be other factors. It is going to be invasive species and more run-off, and those areas. To try to just randomly lock away areas I think does the conservation cause no good at all because it just makes people cynical.

I also say to the people of South Australia, and in particular to the Hon. Kelly Vincent, that those with a social conscience and those who care for the environment should be wary of the Greens and the Labor Party because their views are often based on misplaced understanding.

The Hon. K.L. Vincent: I like to make my own decisions.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Well, I am just saying that as a point of warning.

The Hon. K.L. Vincent: I don't need to be warned about making my own decisions, thank you very much.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Okay, that's fine. One example is the Kangaroo Island local advisory groups who pointed out to the department an area where there is a particular leafy sea dragon habitat which was just not even included. I think there are a lot of examples where there were locals who tried to point out good areas to the environment department that should have actually been included and would have provided some benefit but that was not done, for whatever reason.

Finally, I would like to thank the many South Australians in regional South Australia, particularly, who have continued to speak out, through the select committee process and others, at the unjustness of this process. My door was open to anyone and everyone. There has been no secret about this bill. It is no secret that I had hoped to be the minister at this point in time and that we would be able to undertake a complete review, but that is not the situation before us. The best I could do to force the government's hand is come up with this piece of legislation which reverts the sanctuary zones.

It is not like we are suddenly going to be opening the sanctuary zones to people who go barging in with a Margiris, or anything like that. It is just that there will be habitat protection zones, for which there are a number of protections already, so it will be a higher level of protection than they have now. The passage of this bill will be a win for common sense and, if the government had followed the LAG advice, we would not be debating it.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 10

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES
Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Lucas, R.I.
McLachlan, A.L. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Wade, S.G.
NOES
Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E. (teller)
Gazzola, J.M. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J.
Ngo, T.T. Parnell, M.C. Vincent, K.L.
PAIRS
Brokenshire, R.L. Kandelaars, G.A.


Second reading thus carried.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (18:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 18:11 the council adjourned until Thursday 3 July 2014 at 14:15.


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