Marine Parks (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment Bill

23 Nov 2010 archivespeech

This speech is in relation to the Marine Parks (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment Bill. It entails some responses by the Hon. G.E. GAGO to questions put foward by The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK on an earlier date.

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

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

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

Section 14(9)—delete subsection (9)

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

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

I think it is important that the parliament is able to continue to express a view about the management plans and, therefore, I would urge all honourable members to support the amendments.

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

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

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