Transcript of Evidence - Maitland 25.10.11

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Maitland Town Hall, Robert Street, Maitland Tuesday 25 October 2011 at 11:00am
BY AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MEMBERS: Hon. D.G.E. Hood MLC (Chairperson) Hon. J.M. Gazzola MLC Hon. J.M.A. Lensink MLC Hon. C. Zollo MLC WITNESSES: ANDREW CAMERON, Chief Executive Officer, RAY AGNEW, Mayor, SIMON
GREENSLADE, Councillor, and PETER STOCKINGS, Economic Development Officer, all of the District Council of Yorke Peninsula, PO Box 88, Minlaton 5575, called and examined: 778 The CHAIRPERSON: Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for appearing before the committee today. The Legislative Council has given the authority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will be forwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time to present confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate and the committee will consider your request. Parliamentary privilege is accorded all evidence presented to a select committee; however, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside of this meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. There will be media here, as I understand, so they would be aware of that. Could I say what a pleasure it is for us to be here on the beautiful Yorke Peninsula. It is a great part of our state. We have had the privilege, on this committee, of travelling. We went to Kangaroo Island recently and down to Wirrina Cove. We get all the tough jobs in this business and it has been a real pleasure for us. We are off to Port Lincoln shortly, and up to the Eyre Peninsula, so that will be something as well. It is a pleasure to hear you today. You haven't made a formal submission so I understand that you will have a statement to make. Please proceed. Mr AGNEW: We have an apology from councillor John Rich, who is a former president of the Local Government Association who is one of our councillors now. He has just had a knee replacement and so is not able to be with us. I am not going to do the major talking today because we've actually got other representatives that have been on different LAG groups. Simon Greenslade has been involved with region 11, which is a very important one centred on Port Victoria and also on the Spencer Gulf side of things. Peter Stockings is chair of one of the LAG groups as well, so he is very versed in what has been going on, and Andrew Cameron is the CEO of our council. We have met with the minister on two occasions and had some discussions with him about the whole procedure because we feel that the LAG groups are the ones that have had the biggest contact but, as a council, we have had the community coming and saying to us, 'What's the council going to do about marine parks?' It really hasn't been our area, but we are very concerned about the potential economic impact it could have on our region when we've got 485 km of coastline and there are four marine parks within our local government area. As you can see from the gallery that's here today, there's a great deal of concern about it, and there's been a lot of work that has gone on in the background. I will hand over to Simon and also to Peter, who will do most of the talking on our behalf. Mr GREENSLADE: Firstly, thanks for the opportunity to appear before your committee today. I will apologise in advance if I seem somewhat blunt but, like most farmers, I am coming to the business end of the season for myself and I am lying in bed most nights wondering how I am going to get everything done before I start in about a fortnight. 779 The CHAIRPERSON: Blunt is good, Simon.
Mr GREENSLADE: Thank you. Like almost everyone who has appeared before you, I have concerns about the size of the sanctuary zones within the marine parks, most
Page 176
A. CAMERON R. AGNEW S. GREENSLADE P. STOCKINGS particularly the zone within Marine Park 11, which is the area I know best, having lived in the Maitland and Port Victoria district my entire life. I understand the political imperative that has driven the marine park legislation; however, one of the premises upon which this act is based I find somewhat amusing. 780 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Sorry, Simon, we should have cleared this up before. Is your evidencethe statement you are givingon behalf of the council or as a member of the community? Mr GREENSLADE: As a member of the community, but I feel bound as a councillor to tell the committee what the community is enunciating to me. 781 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I understand that, but you are appearing and giving evidence on behalf of the council, so the council is going to declare its position on Mr AGNEW: Well, the council isn't really 782 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I am just trying to clarify it.
Mr AGNEW: The council isn't really declaring its position, just the concerns that are coming from the community that we represent. Therefore, what Simon is getting at is the feedback that has come from there. This is very much the feeling from the wider community. 783 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I understand that, but council doesn't have a position?
Mr CAMERON: If I could clarify, John, the council elected this group to go and meet with the minister and DENR on a number of occasions. From a council perspective probably from our perspectivewe were excluded from the initial consultation process and where Peter Stockings came in with his economic development hat as a representative on the LAG groups. From a council perspective, I think it is difficult for us to make comment on where this goes further until such time as the no-take zones have been identified. We understand that the community generally is concerned here about the size of the no-take zones that were put forward for consultation, bearing in mind that the minister was very clear to us that the LAGs' efforts would be taken on board. But, again, we are yet to see the final outcome of that. So, it is very difficult for us to put a position forward until such time as we have seen the final outcome for consultation which, on my understanding, is due for NovemberDecember, but there is a possibility that that may be extended out to February-March. 784 The CHAIRPERSON: Just to be clear, the views that we will hear todayI don't want to be overly pedantic; it is important for us to understand who is being represented here don't necessarily represent the views of council. Mr CAMERON: These have not formally been ratified by council, no. 785 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: And to date your council hasn't made any submission? Mr CAMERON: That's correct. 786 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Others councils have, but yours hasn't? Mr CAMERON: That's correct. 787 The CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.
Mr GREENSLADE: I find it amusing that if something is of ecological value it shouldn't matter whether it is located next to a heavily populated area; it is either of value or not. Therefore, the cynic in me can't help think that they are but a sign located adjacent to small rural communities that are perceived to be too weak to defend themselves. However, if DENR has by some miracle managed to get the sanctuary zones right (and I realise they are not complete at this stage), I have yet to find anyone in the departmentand I have had several discussions with David Pearce and I find him an incredibly nice man trying to do particularly difficult jobwho is able to explain away the simple fact that if you take away nearly 30 per cent of the area in marine park 11, and if you overlay sandpit maps on top of those it is a
Page 177
A. CAMERON R. AGNEW S. GREENSLADE P. STOCKINGS vast area where people come to fish, that it is not going to drive away the very people who come here to fish. I have safety concerns, if the area is closed off, that the people in boats that are not suitable will be forced into deeper and less safe water. This is the reason that people come to the area off Balgowan, Chinaman Wells and Port Victoria: they come to fish where there is shallow water, where there is safe anchorage, and where they are able fish almost year-round, unlike in some of the parks at the bottom end where the natural weather creates a barrier for them to go out a lot of the time during the winter. Like much of rural South Australia, the communities of Maitland and Port Victoria and the small surrounding towns were hit particularly hard by the recession of the eighties and the nineties. However, to a large extent they have managed to reinvigorate and regenerate themselves on the back of tourism, more particularly recreational fishing. I am hoping that you have had the opportunity to read the submission of the marine park 11 people. I will not go into it because in part 4 it gives examples of the socioeconomic impact on marine park 11. I think it clearly demonstrates through graphs and surveys just what the impact will be for people if they can't get that summer tourist trade. I fear they will not be able to sustain their businesses in the long term and, therefore, those facilities will be lost to our communities. Earlier this year, my local member, Steven Griffiths, was kind enough to hand a letter to Paul Caica. I must say I am immensely pleased that Mr Caica has retained his portfolio. He seems a straight shooter to me and a particularly honest man, and I take him at his word when he said that it is not his intention to put the future of little towns in peril. Earlier in the year, when I wrote this letter, I wrote of the plight of a young man who has come to Maitland to start an outboard marine business. I wrote of the fear in his eyes and the trepidation in his voice when I asked him about his future prospects if the marine parks are established in their current form. This message is now being repeated to me time and time again, whether it is the local shopkeeper, the publican, or the real estate agent. The same message is coming through: the uncertainty is quite literally economically killing them. However, there is one part of the legislation that disturbs me on an even more fundamental level. I know this is a particularly sensitive subject. In many ways it is the elephant in the room, and I have agonised for some time whether to raise this, ever since I knew your committee was coming to the peninsula. However, I have formed the opinion that I must because it will be derelict of me not to do so and, perhaps more frighteningly, sooner or later it will be brought up in a public forum in a more passionate and possibly less considered manner, which I believe would be an unmitigated disaster. It is my understanding that an Indigenous land use agreement will override the fishing ban within the sanctuary zones of marine park 11. Is that correct or, to the best of your knowledge, your understanding? 788 The CHAIRPERSON: I am not aware of it, frankly. Do any other members of the committee have any knowledge of that? 789 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It's the first have heard of it.
Mr GREENSLADE: If that is so I am glad that at least one section of our community will be able to carry out its customary practices. 790 The CHAIRPERSON: Can I just say to the gallery, with respect, that as a parliamentary committee we have rules and procedures so I'm not allowed to take evidence from the gallery in an ad hoc manner. I appreciate very much, sir, your volunteering that; perhaps if we can speak later. Sorry, please proceed. Mr GREENSLADE: Thank you, Dennis. As I alluded to before, I'm a lifelong resident of this area. Next year marks 140 years since our family took up land in the Maitland, Urania and Port Victoria areas. I live in a house built by my grandfather well over 100 years ago, and my daughter (a sixth generation peninsula resident) sleeps in the bedroom where my grandfather was bornthat is a fact she finds somewhat disconcerting, I must say.
Page 178
A. CAMERON R. AGNEW S. GREENSLADE P. STOCKINGS This area is my home and the Greenslade name, like so many of the pioneers of this district, is inextricably linked to it. I have no doubt that one day, unfortunately, I will reside in the Maitland cemetery. Soon I will start harvesting my block at South Kilkerran which overlooks Chinaman Wells, Point Pearce, Wardang Island and the bay of Port Victoria. Like the carrier who will pick up my grain and the grain agent, John Thiele, who is working across the road, I wish on a calm day that I will be out fishing and not reaping, even though that is where I make my bread and butter. However, with the passage of this bill I am afraid all this is going to change because the local people will be excluded from the areas in which they have fished for generations. This is despite the fact that in my opinionand it is just my opinionby any dictionary definition these people regard themselves as Indigenous to this area as well. On a more personal level and unfortunately it is something I do not get to do as often as I like nowadays, for my daughter is at boarding schoolI like to go fishing with my daughter, Matilda. We launch off Balgowan and we often anchor in the white holes off Chinaman Wells. Just imagine, if you willI realise I am begging your indulgence so I will try to be as brief as I canmy daughter on a Saturday night may be talking to a couple of the Aboriginal lads with whom she went to school about what they are doing tomorrow. Thankfully, my daughter's generation seems to have bridged the divide in the community to a far greater extent than any previous generation. If they reply that they are going fishing off the white holes of Chinaman Wells, what is to be the answer to my daughter if she asks me the same question on Sunday morning? As I said, I know this is an incredibly delicate subject but the local people are starting to voice their disgruntlement to me. To me, it is like a train in the distance: it is a low rumbling but it is getting louder and it is coming our way. I know that this would be an unforeseen and unintended consequence of this new legislation, but to me it is just an example of what could happen to us if the act goes through in its current form, with the current size of the sanctuary zones. Thank you. 791 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can I just clarify that the legislation is a framework, it doesn't actually decide where the sanctuary zones go: that is a decision for the department. I have also heard, particularly from this community, that the outer boundaries were set by legislation. That is also not correct. The legislation has set a framework that the department has then implemented where it would put those, so the legislation is there already and it is a decision entirely for the government, as to where those final zones go. Mr GREENSLADE: All right. 792 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As you have pointed out, you will see a draft management plan later on this year, perhaps early next year. It is still a draft plan then, and then there will be further consultation. Mr GREENSLADE: I understand now. I'm sorry if I used incorrect terminology, but I hope that I still managed to bring forward the concerns of the general community. 793 The CHAIRPERSON: You did; very well. I think it is important that it was clarified by Michelle that it is not the legislation that will be determining these matters so it is easier to change, if you like, than legislation is, perhapsbut as it was pointed out, it is undergoing a consultation process. We will hear in November or possibly December, and then there will be further consultation on that. But we are not here to defend the decision, I'm just telling you what the decision is at this stage. Mr GREENSLADE: We are looking forward to the determination and the next phase coming out because, as I said, the uncertainty is eating away at the fabric of our society. 794 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think you have conveyed that very well. Do any of you other gentlemen wish to make a contribution before we got to questions? Mr STOCKINGS: Just in respect of the economic side of it, given the fact that this district council is bounded by four parks, as we intimated earlier, if the implementation was brought in, as it was initially with those sanctuary zones being to the degree they were with levels of
Page 179
A. CAMERON R. AGNEW S. GREENSLADE P. STOCKINGS 34 per cent inside the outer boundary zones of some of those parks, the devastation would have been absolutely chaotic. You don't have to be Blind Freddy to work that out. So the consultation has taken place and many of those meetings were very animated, and I can understand why, because that was what was presented earlier. It was unfortunate that DENR came out with the maps and the way they presented it, because it really got people completely offside and it took a lot of calming to try to get to the level. I can speak about park 13. In my role as an economic development officer, I have worked for RDA and also for the district council, so I have a fairly wide spectrum of travel. People will know that I travel a heck of a lot in the whole area. To take John's point, there is no defining council thing but overall, in the meetings we have had with the minister, the message has been to reiterate that we needed those consultation periods to take place, to define the areas if they needed to be defined, and to bring them down to a level that was reasonably acceptable. I can speak mainly about park 13. We had long consultations and there will be other speakers todayand we got to an agreed position, as best as possible, that was acceptable to the professionals, the recreationals, to business and to all other users of the area. One of the other things that needs to be put out is that the beach, even if it is in a no-go zone, is still somewhere a kid can go and chuck a line. In that respect that was paramount, also, that those areas which had a sanctuary zone adjacent to them were moved in such a way that it did not impact on those small communities. In one particular instance, it was right in front of one particular area. I have some written evidence I would like to leave with you from the Port Moorowie group, because they were not able to speak today. I would like to leave that, if I could, just for the groupI have some dot points for them. The economic impact has started and is trying to be assessed. It is an extremely difficult process. We presented some evidence to the minister in relation to the impact, as best we could work out, from having sanctuary zones across those four areas and what that may happen. Again, it's extremely difficult to say, 'Yes, it will have this,' or 'Yes, it will have that.' To get a reasonable amount of certainty at that level you have to take in not only the tourists but also the professionals who will be impacted by it. I take on board what Simon has said, that when you live down the bottom end the sea has a tremendous impact on the amount of recreational people who can get out, but we have quite an intense professional industry from the rock lobster and long liners, and they have craft that can get out and, therefore, they are impacted as well. So, whilst council may not, in a sense, have a so-called policy, it is very interested in the economic outcome of that. As we all know, it still hasn't been defined. As Andrew said, it has not been defined exactly where and what will come back from DENR. I think if it comes back and it is nothing like what has been consulted over there will be World War III. I think that will have all of up in arms, because we have gone to extreme lengthsand I can honestly say this from having been the chair of one of those and been to a number of other meetings to try, as best as possible, to get the wider view and try to concise it down to a level that is acceptable. I know a lot of people don't want them at all. Michelle has commented on the marine parks and the outer boundaries. I thought they were something that had been decreed a long time agoabout seven or eight years ago and that was there. If that's not the case, then we have been led up the garden path with that one. We need more clarification on that because I think there are a heck of a lot in this room here a bit like me who thought that was something that was done with the professional industry, and the professional people have told me that as well. So, that needs some clarification. I have probably said enough. Hopefully I have got the message over that we have consulted as best we possibly can. The LAG groups, it was not an easy thing, and I do commend the officers, particularly Davidand I know he's here today, but it's not just because he is here. It was pretty damn hard being sent out as a lone ranger to try to do that on behalf of DENR. I think DENR really needs to take a look at how it was done to start with, and I think that needs to be
Page 180
A. CAMERON R. AGNEW S. GREENSLADE P. STOCKINGS taken back. Having said that, we have all moved on, and I think we need to wait until the deliberations come out, and then we will see where we go. 795 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We have about 15 minutes or so left, so I would like to open it for questions; I will get Michelle to clarify her comments in a moment. I think the committee has heard that this is something about which there are strong feelings around the tableand we have heard that wherever we have gone, frankly, so that's nothing new. However, can I ask you about the consultation process itself? As I see it, that's the crux of all this in terms of getting an outcome that people are happy with. Can any of you please put your views forward in terms of the consultation process, what was good about it and what wasn't good about it, in your own words? Mr AGNEW: With the consultation process, as a council we weren't consulted at all, for a start; we got it from the community. They have come to the council and said, 'These marine parks here, what are you going to do about it?' We had been given no information about them at all, so there wasn't that consultation. It wasn't until we actually decided that we would go and visit the ministerwhich we were able to do, and that was very goodand that was the early part of our consultation. As a local government body, we were not included in it at all until they were going to have the LAG groups, etc. Then the LAG groups came to council and said, 'What are you going to do about it? What's the council's position?' We didn't know; we had nothing to guide us on what our position would be because we didn't know. There was no consultation with us. Andrew, would you Mr CAMERON: It's fair comment. Mr GREENSLADE: I can't help but think and I know that it wasn't the department's intentionthat, when the maps came out for these big sanctuary zones, naturally people gravitated to those, and they're going, 'Oh, they're going to take away so much in fish.' The process appears to be dragging on, and everyone is hanging on what the next round is going to be. We all realise that the minister has an excruciatingly difficult job to try to navigate this through, but at this stage people still think that off in the park 11 area we are going to get stuck with 28 per cent. As a community, they have come together and decided that they feel they can only give 3.2 per cent before it starts to have an economic impact on them, and from 28 to 3.2 796 The CHAIRPERSON: That's 3.2 no-take?
Mr GREENSLADE: No-take zone, sorry. There's a huge gulf in there, and that uncertainty is eating away at people. 797 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: To follow up on what we were discussing before about whether the boundaries, etc., came through legislation, the act passed parliament in 2007, and at that stage is was minister Gago who was environment minister. Jay Weatherill became environment minister after that, and he was the one who signed off on the boundaries. So that was in 2009, when the outer boundaries were set. Mr STOCKINGS: That's what I'm saying: the outer boundaries have been set. 798 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, they have.
Mr STOCKINGS: That's right; that is my understanding. The outer boundaries are set, and we cannot change those outer boundaries unless both houses of parliament decide to do that. That's about the only way you can do that. 799 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Well, no. I had sought that both houses of parliament could change the zoning, not the outer boundaries because that was all done and dusted, but the parliament won't have that because that wasn't supported. Mr GREENSLADE: So they're rock solid, they're in there now. 800 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, unless there's a change in government.
Page 181
A. CAMERON R. AGNEW S. GREENSLADE P. STOCKINGS Mr STOCKINGS: Just adding to some things in relation to DENR is the fact that what came up at many of these meetings was the scientific evidence that decided that. There are many of us in this room, and those of us who were born and bred on the place, who realise that there are areasand you will hear this around the statethat are not being protected and those are some of the things that we wished to see protected. They don't fall within that outer boundary area and they may be up, down or wherever. 801 The CHAIRPERSON: So, has that been fed back to DENR?
Mr STOCKINGS: Yes, and we also fed that to the minister. The minister was at one of the meetings with us. I can't remember whether it was with the council or was another one I was at. It doesn't matter, but that was something that may be able to be added to. I appreciate that, given the fact of how boundaries are put and how parliament works and all these darn things, it may be something because there are some areas that have great significance to professional fishermen and recreational fishermen and they are not in the protected area, where they have gone to other areas that are. I think there probably needs to be some clarification around that as well. Mr GREENSLADE: And locals find that strange. Everyone can agree, as Peter said, that that area should be protected. Why don't they give that area and protect that, then perhaps they can have some room to negotiate in the big bloc in k where they are excluded from. 802 The CHAIRPERSON: Simon, I don't think it is just the locals that would find that strange, to be frank. 803 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: You have touched on the importance of fishing, but I think it would be really useful, just to get it on record as part of our evidence, if you could describe both what stocks of fish are targeted by the commercial sector and also in terms of recreational fishing. It is probably like a lot of regional South Australia, particularly where it is quite seasonal over summer. A lot of cockies would go to the beach and you might have people come from interstate. Could you just describe to us what your fishing sector looks like? Mr AGNEW: Well, I'm not sure about the fishing sector, but we do have 42 per cent absentee property owners. They are the ones who have got holiday homes here and they are the recreational fishermen who come over here. One member of your committee has been well known for coming over and doing some fishing in our area. 804 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We won't name him.
805 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I will declare my interest, but you never gave me the right fishing spots! Mr AGNEW: I think our location to the metropolitan area is a fairly important thing. The people come over here in, I will say two hours, give or take some time depending on what part of peninsula they are coming from. So, they are coming over here to do their fishing. There are the spin-offs of the actual recreational fishing, with the bait supplies and everything that goes with fishing. So, there is the multiplying effect that will affect our community. That is why a lot of them come over here. They come over here to go crabbing and they come over here to go fishing, if they get feed of fish. I think one of the things that hasn't really been taken into account is the conditions that are now put on there by Fisheries, like your bag limits and all of those sorts of things that are in there. I think the last time I went fishing was well over 12 months ago, when I went out one day. Anyway, the effect of that recreational fisher being able to go out there and just catch those few fish is very important and that is why they are coming. As long as they get a feed of fish, you know? I know that in some areas there has been some talk, particularly over on the West Coast where people have gone in there and abused the system because they have gone out fishing in the morning, got their quota and gone back again in the afternoon, which you are all aware of anyway. The only way you are going to stop that is by policing. It is not going to be stopped by marine parks, etc. So, that is one of our concerns.
Page 182
A. CAMERON R. AGNEW S. GREENSLADE P. STOCKINGS Mr GREENSLADE: It is. These two gulfs are some of the most heavily regulated fishing areas, I imagine, on the planet. The locals find it amusing that they are then having another impost foisted upon them in the form of these marine parks and, in particular, the sanctuary zones. As I said at the outset, I am a farmer. I am not qualified to give you economic figures on the fisheries. I am quite happy to talk to you about the price of the superphosphate and the poor price of grain, but it is just the general malaise that will come into our community if you cut off so much of our fishing area. 806 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Mayor, you are talking about the consultative process and how council was not consulted. Marine parks are not exactly a new concept. Heading back to 1999, I think they were first introduced by the former Liberal government, when Kero was the minister of the day. So, they have been around for 10 or 11 years, and indeed, your local member is a former member of councilhe was the CEOso over all that time, did council ever think about taking a position on marine parks? Mr AGNEW: I do not think so, because it was one thing to say, 'there are going to be marine parks,' but it did not say what was going to be involved with marine parks. Okay; it's a marine park: what are the conditions on it? Nobody knew that anyway, and so there were no questions at all about the marine park; what does it mean? That was really what it was, I would think. Mr GREENSLADE: John, can I say I only joined the council 11 months ago, and I have lived here all my life, and I had heard next to nothing about the marine parks until I came onto council. So, I think what the Mayor is saying is right: people might have been aware that there was a marine park, but until it started to directly impact upon them in the form of the no-take zones, then the level of agitation, of course, was ramped up. 807 The CHAIRPERSON: Carmel, did you have a question?
808 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Probably comments more than anything else. First of all, can I say that the committee is here to listen to you and we are listening to what you have to say, and clearly it is important that we do that. As John has just mentioned, marine parks do have a history, but the act was actually legislated in 2007, as you have also heard, so eventually it did need to progress and it has been on the board for quite a while. The government, I think, in its wisdom thought it was important to have local action groups consult and then take that back before we see a draft management plan come out, and then see further consultation. I have heard from you that you did not think the first phase of the consultation went well, but now I understand that you are quite happy with what has happened since then. Is that correct? Mr STOCKINGS: I not would say that we were happy, Carmel, but I think that the fact thatI agree with you, and I understandthere are just two things I would like to clarify. From the marine parks perspective, the outer boundaries were more about the professional fishing industry being the negotiators, from my understanding of that, in the early days of that being determined. It was not up for recreational Toms, Dicks and Harrys to actually have an impact on that. The only real chance for the ordinary recreational tourism type and there may have been talks with Tourism SA, or something at that stage, and I agree with youis we have got to move forward somewhere along the line to what they want to do. 809 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Eventually it did have to happen under
Mr STOCKINGS: Yes, fair enough; I am not arguing one way or the other with that. I think the issue to start with was probably, yes, a bull in a china shop, but everybody roused up and we got a load of hotheads, and that is fair enough; people need to get their emotions out of their system and then come along. I can say that it did take a lot and I have chaired a lot of things in my lifeto actually get it to a point where we are with the consultation, and some of the consultation has still not been agreed to. Really, people still feel aggrievedyou will hear that today, and they are entitled to do that, and that's finebut it was the best we could do. It took quite a while it took a year
Page 183
A. CAMERON R. AGNEW S. GREENSLADE P. STOCKINGS because that was back in March, and that whole year took a long time; that is fine, but when you are on the ground and you are dealing with it, and your phone is going every night and you hold it out here until people calm downthey are entitled to do that, but it was darn hard. I daresay, it was no different if you were a DENR officer or something of that natureit was the same thing. Having said that, I appreciate what you are saying now, that we still do not have what the sanctuary zonelet's call them 'no-go zones', because that is what they really areon the map. When they come out (which they will), then we certainly will be seeking good clarification and more consultation if they have another impact on that. 810 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Well, we are here to listen to you today. That is what we are here for. Mr STOCKINGS: Thank you. 811 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: You mentioned earlierand I know your role; I have been coming here for many, many, many years, and it may be a question to you Andrew is the council heading towards getting some economic modelling on what you think the impact will be? Mr CAMERON: Not at this point in time, we're not. It's very difficult for us to undertake any economic modelling without knowing the size of the sanctuary zones. 812 they are? The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: What about the current ones on the current maps as
Mr CAMERON: Again, John, it is very difficult, and this has been discussed within this group on a number of occasions when we have been requested to do that. It's a fairly big impost on a small regional council for us to undertake economic modelling to that extent, but then to what extent has the LAG process within DENR to where the size of those zones come out? That is the difficulty we have because we don't want to be chasing a moving target either. 813 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: It is just that we continually hear that our fishing equipment, our houses, our businesses won't be worth anything, but I am still looking for these cheap houses and cheap boats that everyone keeps talking about. If there is some submission, whether it is from the Local Government Association just as we have to prove the science (and there is argument over the science), and I appreciate witnesses coming along and saying this is going to have a devastating effect on house prices, that if they going to drop 2 per cent or 5 per cent, why is that? As I said, marine parks have been around since 1999 and house values in all the areas have not exactly gone backwards. Mr CAMERON: I have been here for 7 months, John. I came from the Barossa and Broken Hill, so not a lot of beach in those areas. For me, initially coming here and trying to get my head around that, that was the first thing in my first week, and I heard a lot of feedback from within the community and there was general concern. I related that to DENR, and DENR was quite forceful coming back and saying, 'It won't have any economic impact at all on your council area.' I sit back and look and think that it's 485 kilometres of coast and around 4,000 kilometres of council area to coverand that is significantwith around 48 communities. So, from my perspective, in trying to guide council where there is a decision-making process, when we go out in the next stage of consultation, we are looking at the final size of these zones as a local government authority. 814 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Just to follow on from thatand I don't not know if DENR gave you a rationale for making that sort of statement which I, personally, find extraordinarydo you think that that's because they perceive that a large proportion of the peninsula's income comes from grain and primary industries, and perhaps a bit from mining, rather than appreciating the seasonal tourism component of the peninsula's income, particularly for some of the small towns? 815 was thinking. The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: It's a bit hard to ask the CEO of a council what DENR
816 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: He can answer it however he likes, John. He might have had some rationale.
Page 184
A. CAMERON R. AGNEW S. GREENSLADE P. STOCKINGS 817 The CHAIRPERSON: I think on that, Andrew, feel free to give your opinion. Mr CAMERON: It's probably difficult for me to comment on this stage. 818 The CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, we only have a few minutes left. Is there anything particularly pressing? I think we understand your points. Mr STOCKINGS: A couple of things regarding economics. We have a very good understanding of the economic wealth of Yorke Peninsula from a tourism perspective, from a grain perspective and from a fishing industry perspective and to a degree, with mining. I don't have those figures in my head. I've done them with this group, and I worked them out as best as I could if the sanctuary zones came in, and I will clarify this too, John: the issue about the marine parks only really hit when the sanctuary zones came in not before. There wouldn't' be anybody here, other than the professional fishing operators, who would know anything about the marine park outer boundary. Nothing else, with due respect, has happened until that came in. Nobody else knew anything about it until we were faced suddenly with, 'These are the sanctuary zones, and those zones are coming in there'. To try to give the economic side of things, yes, we know what that's going to do, so we worked it out, and it is in the submission that you have. Port Victoria did a wonderful job on that, and they had some really good help, but one of the things that we worked out was that if we left the four zonesthis is looking at council perspective all-upand looked at those and took a rationale as best as we could. I spoke to Andrew about it one day, and it was damned hard to do this, and I agree with John. Have the marine parks made any impact? No, of course the marine parks haven't made any impact until the perception of the no-go zones. That's when people started to feel that that would happen. Prior to that, no; prices kept continuing to rise because there wasn't an impact. 819 The CHAIRPERSON: Peter, I can totally agree with you. I think the committee would accept that. Mr STOCKINGS: But I can actually give figures which we have already done to what the economics would be on that as it was presented. What it will be when it comes to the next stage, I 820 The CHAIRPERSON: Sorry to interrupt but I think the very clear message you are making to the committee, and correct me if I am wrong, is that although it is hard to quantify (and obviously there is some quantification) because we have not got to the final point yet Mr STOCKINGS: Sure. 821 The CHAIRPERSON: But the concern you havecorrect me if I am wrong because I do not want to put words in your mouthis that the impact would be substantial. Mr STOCKINGS: Yes, exactlyand a submission like this, Dennis, to the best of their understanding and resources, is what the group at Marine Park 11 has put together: what will be the impact on a town like Balgowan or Port Victoria, and then the spin-off effects here. Just briefly, I have spoken to David Pearce about this: there is also concern that if the next phase comes out in December-January, particularly in December which is a particularly busy time for our community, it is not going to be a great look for DENR. It is going to look like they are trying to slide it in the back door when everyone is flat out. 822 The CHAIRPERSON: The committee has had that feedback before, I can reassure you, so that is something we are aware of. John, you have one more pressing question. 823 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: One last question: of all the evidence, most of the people who have come before us and organisations that have come before us, support marine parks. Are you prepared as a council to put your position on marine parks in January? 824 825 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Per se. The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: They all start with, 'We support marine parks but'
Page 185
A. CAMERON R. AGNEW S. GREENSLADE P. STOCKINGS Mr CAMERON: Well, I think that is about right. Without speaking on behalf of the council, I would have to be fairly clear that they are very supportive of marine parks per se and sanctuary zones as long as it is sustainable and economically sustainable. I think that would be a fair comment. 826 The CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, thank you. We appreciate sincerely your evidence today and I assure you it will be duly considered genuinely considered is the point I am trying to make.
THE WITNESSES WITHDREW
Page 186
WITNESS: IAN WINTON, Chairman, Lower Yorke Peninsula Action Group, PO Box 1085, Flagstaff Hill 5159, called and examined: 827 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Winton, for appearing before us today. We are very grateful. The Legislative Council has given the authority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will be forwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time to present confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate and the committee will consider your request. Parliamentary privilege is accorded all evidence presented to a select committee; however, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside of this meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. We have received your submission and we thank you for it. Please proceed. Mr WINTON: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to add to the submission of the Lower Yorke Peninsula Community Action Groupand I will refer to them as the CAGhere today. At the outset, and as a statement of principle, the CAG supports the establishment of properly designed and managed sanctuary zones within marine parks, but we simply ask that sanctuary zones are established with full engagement of the community and that they have clear, measurable objectives and biodiversity conservation outcomes that cannot be met via fisheries management arrangement. I would like to provide you first with a little bit of background about the action group. The CAG was formed after a hastily convened open public meeting in Edithburgh on 30 December last year. I personally convened the meeting after being alerted to the government's discussion paper and, doing some research, I contacted the three LAG chairmen on the Yorke Peninsula. I spoke with the South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council, I made contact with the department, and I researched their website. The more material that I gathered, the more concerned I became about the process. So, the meeting was publicised in Edithburgh by placing about 100 pamphlets on cars and boats at the boat ramp two days before the planned meeting. To be truthful, I was surprised by the number of people who attended. There were 300 people inside the hall and I am told that there were 100 people who couldn't get in the hall and were hanging outside the doors. It reminded me a little bit of Burnside. I was equally surprised by the level of anger in the hall. I had not come prepared for 300 people. But I was impressed by the rowdy opposition to the discussion on sanctuary zones, and there was unanimous support in the hall to develop and fund a smaller action group. As a result, a group of 25 to 30 people met regularly, including business owners, a person with significant prior experience in the Department for the Environment, a fisher, a long-time fisher in the area who voluntarily provides catch information to assist the government research on garfish. There were two divers who had over 40 years' experience in diving across the state, and one of those have been employed by the Department of Marine and Harbours. We had a retired senator of the federal parliament, a retired medical practitioner, several shack owners and property owners, business consultants, and a host of recreational fishers and boat owners and, of course, there was me. I have had over 40 years' experience in the public sector. I have worked in six ministers' offices of both Labor and Liberal persuasion and have had significant exposure in the environment and fisheries portfolios. I have had long-term experience in prisons, mainly from the outside, and, as a senior officer and latterly as a human resource consultant to the Department of Transport and then in environment and fisheries. I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the action group has a wealth of experience and significant knowledge of the area. They felt, as one, right from the very beginning, that the local community and the LAG particularly had been betrayed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, going back to my old experience. These community members are not, in my submission, a gathering of troublemakers, and I was very disappointed that Mr Allan Holmes, the Chief Executive of the
Page 187
I. WINTON department, described them as troublemakers on the radio in January 2011. It is these people, these good solid people, who have the capacity and the community spirit to be useful and expert contributors. If only DENR would invest some time and better target their resources to the process. It is my clear submission to you that DENR has lost the trust of recreational fishers and business owners and the general community affected by their process. It is going to take considerable time and effort for that trust to be regained. The action group in Marine Park 13 worked cooperatively with the LAG and with Mr David Pearce of the department to contribute. I should point out that in the correspondence that you will find in our submission to you we have been at pains to acknowledge the considerable effort, patience and fortitude of Mr Pearce. It is not that he just a very tall man; he is a very patient man. So none of what I say is criticism of him, but the same cannot be said for his departmental leaders and the strategy developers, particularly Mr Chris Thomas, the program director. I will allude further to Mr Chris Thomas later in my evidence. Just as an aside, I played footy for far too long. I coached and played football for probably 25-odd years. I had the benefit of some useful coaches, and they said, 'Bluey, you should never play the man; always play the ball.' I have done that throughout my life, but today I'm going to play the man a little, because I believe there is one man that is responsible for a lot of the mess that we have today, and that is Mr Chris Thomas. Considerable effort, time and money have been expended by the individual members of the LAG to understand the need for these significant areas that have been proposed to be closed for conservation purposes. Our action group is not convinced that there is any scientific evidence particularly relevant to Marine Park 13. The main rationale for proposing closure of conservatively more than 30 per cent of the total area, as outlined in the discussion paper, was based on a loosely defined precautionary principle, but it was always mainly about political imperatives, and I believe that discussion paper was a dishonest bargaining position. So the absence of any relevant scientific evidence is shown I think early in the piece when DENR staff invited me and several other members of the Edithburgh community to simply draw up our sanctuary zones, and they would be reasonably considered. In fact, the final proposal that was submitted by the LAG and developed in conjunction with us was based on the main premise of minimising the impact on local communities, but we had confidence that DENR seemed comfortable that it would meet most of the criteria. The myriad of scientific and other publications that I have read suggest that successful designer sanctuary zones require community buy-in, and efforts to convince DENR that this is a key component success and, therefore, to allow a reasonable time and resources for effective consultation has not been successful. DENR have not adequately consulted with the community on the issue, and the community has no confidence in its ability to design or implement a community engagement strategy. Until the department was faced with a backlash at the Burnside meeting it had no plans to have information sessions in the metropolitan area. In fact, at a meeting with Mr Chris Thomas that I went to he said they would not have any. It took considerable pressure on the department for an information session to be held at Edithburgh. It is my submission to you that DENR has failed to communicate its strategic intent or the scientific basis for the establishment of over 140 no-take zones across Australia. Against this background we have no confidence that any management strategy will have community support or provide any objectives on which the success of the initiative can be measured. I have been at pains to record in the submission that I have sent to you the completely unsatisfactory meeting with Mrs Thomas, the program manager. I ask you to take particular note of the report to the LAG, dated 9 May 2011, which is Appendix 9. It is entitled, 'A community under duress'. It is my humble opinion that the strategy developed by the program director lacks any semblance of understanding of the need for real community engagement. The evidence to you, the select committee, given by the chief executive of DENR and the program manager builds on our cynicism that when the government proposals are announced later this year the process will not include any real community consultation. I do not see that a roadshow of information sessions with a time line of a few months is a realistic effort to effectively engage the community on an issue of such public
Page 188
I. WINTON importance or concern. We have no confidence that DENR will properly consider the social and economic impacts of the proposal, on the Yorke Peninsula in particular. Since I made my submission to the select committee, I have had an experience that builds on my concern as to the perceptions of DENR in relation to consultation and is particularly relevant in the context of realistically considering the impacts of any proposed sanctuary zones. If I can give you a little bit of background, as part of my effort to broaden the network of contacts that the CAG would need across the state, in February this year (amongst other things) I joined the South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council. I have been installed as Deputy Chair of that council, which surprises me somewhat, having joined just in February, but that is the matter. As the SARFAC representative I attended a meeting with EconSearch on Monday 26 September as part of the consultation on the impact of sanctuary zones. This meeting reinforces my view that the whole process is being rushed. It is lazy public policy, and DENR simply does not understand the need or the value of true stakeholder consultation. The invitation to attend the meeting, and the meeting, gave me no confidence that the government has listened to the ongoing protests of recreational anglers across the state by adjusting its community engagement process. I would like to give you a little bit of background about what occurred as a result of that invitation. SARFAC was provided about a week's notice of the proposed meeting, and it was in normal business hours, which effectively prevented a reasonable cross-section of that organisation's mostly volunteer resources being able to attend. EconSearch advised me at the meeting that they were required to report to the government by Thursday 6 October (about 10 days later). Therefore, in my assessment, it was in the final stages of preparing its report. I was given no advance notice of the details to be discussed, nor was I afforded any opportunity to consult with the SARFAC membership, despite this government initiative being the largest threat in living memory to recreational anglers. At the meeting, EconSearch was unable to provide any definitive indication of the government's final proposals, and I found it impossible to provide any reasonable contribution to such an important initiative without access to more detailed information. Nor could I understand and I voiced this at the meetingI just could not comprehend how the researchers could provide any definitive advice in these circumstances. However, I was shown maps of every marine park in the state (with light pencil-marks put on the maps) which EconSearch told me might form the government's final proposals for sanctuary zones. Over a period of two hours I was asked to provide comment on the social and economic impact of more than 140 sanctuary zones across the state. This process can only be described as farcical and a shameful attempt at consultation, and I made those very comments at the meeting. The time lines for completion of the report are, in my opinion, completely unrealistic, and they do not provide EconSearch with the opportunity to properly consult with key stakeholders. In my opinion, the meeting was arranged to give EconSearch the opportunity to tick the box that SARFAC had been consulted. I firmly rejected at that meeting, as I do now, any assertion that SARFAC has been consulted on such a critical issue. But let me be clear that, as I have lauded the efforts of David Pearce here, the criticisms I outline today are not intended to be directed immediately at EconSearch. I was treated with respect at the meeting, and the researchers gave me the impression that they listened to and heard my comments and protests. I believe it is unfortunate that DENR continues to rush these processes and seems to continue to ignore the concerns of the general recreational fishers or their rights in relation to effective community engagement and consultation. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the government continues to place recreational fishers in an adversarial position and at odds with a laudable conservation initiative. In summary, it is my submission that the most significant flaws in the DENR strategy are to use the information gained from recreational anglers provided in good faith as one of the tools to design sanctuary zones. I believe their really critical mistake was to develop draft discussion sanctuary zones without involving the LAGs or the community. To table these documents that they have prepared at the LAG meeting without any resources to manage the inevitable public reaction was disgraceful. It was disrespectful of the LAG members and, in my opinion, it was an act of treachery. In particular, that strategy was more disgraceful, as Mr Thomas stated at my meeting with him, that this type of reaction was expected; it
Page 189
I. WINTON was normal. This one act by DENR put the members of the LAG in a particularly poor position in any future dealings with the general community and, in my opinion, it threatened their very standing in the community. Another flaw is that DENR does not acknowledge the significant damage the process was and is causing in local communities, and it seems unwilling to adjust the strategy or the time lines to ameliorate that damage. DENR strategists do not adequately recognise the value of community buy-in to the establishment and management of these sanctuary zones. DENR has not enabled the consultants assessing the impact of over 140 sanctuary zones with sufficient time or direction to facilitate the process. It remains our view that DENR processes are flawed. It remains our view that the strategy for the development of sanctuary zones has been poorly conceived and poorly led. We believe that to facilitate the best outcomes for the development of sanctuary zones which can be objectively measured for performance it is essential that a moratorium should be instituted to enable the government to review the leadership of the program and to more effectively engage the community so that trust is built and that community buy-in is effected. Sanctuary zones and local plans need to be based on threat identification, rather than a loosely defined precautionary principle. This principle hasn't been adequately communicated to the community. Finally, the experience of the last 12 months highlights a broader and systemic issue for meand this is a personal view and hasn't been discussed with the CAG and it is my view that the recreational fishing sector has, in the main, not been able to properly organise itself, and this has resulted in a fractured approach which has been of significant benefit to DENR. By poor organisation and the lack of resources, it has been unable to achieve effective representation on this particularly important issue. In my humble opinion, a recreational fishing licence, managed in partnership by a trust which should include government representation and input, is highly desirable. Whilst I understand that, at this point in South Australian politics, a recreational fishing licence might be seen as poison, I think it is an important strategy to pursue. The experiences interstateand there are manycould be used to build our model, and I would be happy to elaborate on some of the benefits of properly managed trusts a little later, if you are interested. 828 The CHAIRPERSON: Would you mind if I stop you there, unless there is something else pressing? I really want to get in some questions, and we are running very close to time. Is that okay with you, or is there something else pressing that you really want to put to us? Mr WINTON: I just have one; but perhaps I won't read this out. I had the chairperson of the Stansbury Progress Association send me an email that states their position in relation to sanctuary zones, and I would be happy to table that. 829 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Sorry to do that, but I want to make sure that there is enough time for the committee to ask questions. Thank you very much for your evidence; you focused a lot on the consultation, which is normally my first question so I don't need to ask that question this time. However, I would like to ask about something you didn't touch on very much; that is, your perception of the impact of what is being proposed. If it were put in place as it is currently proposed, what would your perception be of the impact? Mr WINTON: My perception is perhaps driven by the people I have met in the process since December last year. With the people I have regular exposure to and I am just a property owner at Edithburgh; I come from Adelaide most of the timeevery time I walk into the deli, the pub or the caravan park people say to me 'What's going on? What's going on?' My perception is that if the no-take zones were brought in as proposed we would probably lose the pub in Edithburgh. I have no doubt that if the sanctuary zone in front of Port Moorowie was implemented that the value of those properties, they would lose 10 per cent, 20 per cent off the top. I don't have any expertise to say that, but that sanctuary zone in front of Port Moorowie is just madness. And the area in front of Sultana Point, you only have to go there on any given daythere might, over Easter, be over 200 boatsand there'll be 100 boats fishing in that area. They're not ripping fish out of the ocean; they're lucky to get a feed.
Page 190
I. WINTON I believe that we'd lose the pub and I believe the caravan park, particularly, in Edithburgh and Coobowie would be impacted, and people from Stansbury would start complaining because people from Edithburgh and Port Moorowie would go to Stansbury to fish. 830 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Early on in your evidence you talked about a document from DENR. Can you identify what document that was? It was when you were talking about how you had been invited to perhaps design some sanctuary zones. Mr WINTON: It wasn't a document; it was an invitation. When I first started to work out who was who in environment, and who was driving this 831 to 832 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This year? Mr WINTON: Yes. I was invited to design some no-take zones. 833 published. The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: So that was after the draft sanctuary zones had been Mr WINTON: Yes. 834 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Was that a process that was separate to the LAG process then? Mr WINTON: Yes. There were public meetings that were popping up everywhere and there were regular invitations to people, 'Well, design your own; let's have a look at what you'd like to have as a no-take zone.' I just believe that's madness. Not in my backyard; that's what people are going to do, they're going to design sanctuary zones that don't affect them. So let's have a good scientific basis to put a sanctuary zone in front of Port Moorowie and let the community understand what it is about and what it is trying to protect, and how it is going to be managed. Then you will get people who want to participate in that. These are good people who own these places down here and they want to participate; they just believe it's bully boy tactics. 835 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: So can I confirm that it was DENR that invited you Mr WINTON: Yes. 836 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Are you still Ian Winton Consulting Pty Ltd? Mr WINTON: Yes; I'm not trading a great deal these days but that's me. 837 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: So as a consultant you would understand the consultative process, you know a fair bit about it? Mr WINTON: I believe I do. 838 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: You spoke about bringing the community along with you, and I think you were in the gallery when I said that marine parks had been around for at least 10 or 11 years, 1999, introduced by the Howard government 839 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The concept has been around for a while but the actual marine parks haven't. 840 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: The Howard government and all the governments were signing up to it, so it is not a new concept or anything like that. At some stage, the government of the day, whether it was Labor or Liberal, would have had to make a decision to facilitate the consultative process. Do you agree with that? Mr WINTON: Yes. 841 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Okay. So, they have released maps. DENR has released maps, had its roadshows, had its article in SA Angler, had public meetingsall that sort of stuff. Some are heated. You have organised your own, which is terrific community involvement. That is good consultation The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Do you know approximately when that was? Mr WINTON: We had the meeting in December/January; in February I was invited
Page 191
I. WINTON Mr WINTON: Thank you, John. 842 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: bringing people up to speed. Do you think we are still in the consultative phase now? Mr WINTON: Yes. 843 phase? Mr WINTON: As I put to the minister when I met with him, along with the other three LAG chairmen, there is a difference between consultation and community engagement. I don't believe that the next phase that DENR is going to implement is going to be about community engagement. I believe, and the evidence that has been put to the select committee is that there are going to be some roadshows. Now, what DENR has generated in the community is a whole lot of anger and angst and they are going to have to turn that around. 844 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Just DENR? The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: So, what is the problem with remaining in a consultative
Mr WINTON: I believe that there would have been a level of angst anyway. I really do believe that. The experience in other states tells us that there is going to be a level of angst. 845 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: It became a political football in other states, didn't it?
Mr WINTON: Yes. I think that the implementation of sanctuary zones anywhere that affects people's perceived rights about where they are going to fish is going to develop anxieties. 846 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: scaremongering? There being a disturbance. 847 you. 848 849 850 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: That's alright. I asked the question. The CHAIRPERSON: You have asked the question but I would say The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It's more of a statement, I think. The CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I have to ask the gallery to be quiet, please. Thank So, it is pretty easy to whip up a bit of fear and
851 The CHAIRPERSON: Mr Winton, I think we are very clear about your position. It seems that a lot of us share that position, but can I say to the Hon. Mr Gazzola: if you have a question, please, let's put it to Mr Winton. We are running close to time. 852 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I have asked you a question. It is pretty easy to whip up a bit of fear and scaremongering? Mr WINTON: Well, I guess it is, John. If you had the opportunity to be at the public meeting that I arranged, and if you look at my history, through my work background or such, I have never ever been engaged in an action group. I have never ever wanted to play politics. In all of my life, I have never wanted to sit in this seat and put evidence to a select committee, but I just feel strongly that DENR has not devised the strategy effectively. Whilst there were what have been described to me as some rednecks at the meeting that we had in Edithburgh, in the main, I would say there were 290 very good citizens there. They weren't scaremongering: they were just angry. 853 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I am not saying they are not good citizens. Mr WINTON: Okay. You wanted an answer, I have given it to you, John. 854 The CHAIRPERSON: I think we are out of time. Are there any burning questions from the committee? 855 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Perhaps mine will be comments as well. I was just going to explore some of the things that you did say about the consultation process which, to me, I understood was an engagement process, in terms of getting the local knowledge from people. I would have thought that was a good thing, but you are saying you don't agree with that?
Page 192
I. WINTON Mr WINTON: Not at all, Carmel. The LAG process was a very good process. I would applaud the department for establishing the LAG process. 856 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: You have to start somewhere, don't you? Mr WINTON: Yes, you do. 857 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: You have to make a start somewhere.
Mr WINTON: You do, and if there had been the trust of those people in that LAG, even if they had said, 'Look, we are about to table these discussion sanctuary zones, what do you reckon?' they would have got some feedback like, 'Don't do that! We are going to get lynched out there.' But they did not do that; they came into the meeting and said, 'There it is. Now, you go out and consult with the community.' They didn't give them any resources to be able to do that, and that is just wrong. It set these people up to fail. 858 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: That is most probably the first time we have actually heard the structurethe process, if you likeso it is interesting to hear those comments. You are all saying you agree with your local environmental fisheries officers, but you are saying you don't agree with the hierarchy; is that what you are saying? Mr WINTON: Definitely. Definitely, I think the leadership of this program is terrible. I think the people have been given the opportunity to go out into the community and consult with them, the likes of David Pearcewhat an impossible task he has, and how well he has done it. I applaud him; he has been brilliant. 859 DENR. Mr WINTON: Absolutely. I don't want set David up in terms of his career path, but I have sat in meetings and seen the shade of grey that this man goes, and I have seen him nodding in appreciation of some of the positions that I have put to his leaders, but I believe he has been on a short lead, and he hasn't been given the freedom to actually get out there and work with the community. 860 The CHAIRPERSON: Mr Winton, I am terribly sorry to do this, and we are here to listen, but we are way over time and I will need to leave it there. Can I just say for the record that I certainly don't regard the people of those meetings as rednecks or anything like it, and it's terribly unfortunate that such language is used about these decent people. Thank you very much for your evidence. Mr WINTON: Thank you for listening. The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: And yet, he is a DENR officer, acting on behalf of
THE WITNESS WITHDREW
Page 193
WITNESS: PETER BOURKE, 30 Crampton Crescent, Port Victoria 5573, called and examined: 861 The CHAIRPERSON: Just to the gallerysorry to make you leave and come back. I suppose a bit of exercise does us all good, so I hope you do not mind. I do not mean to be in any way rude, but I must insist on quiet from the gallery. It is the rules under which we operate, so I ask, respectfully, that you please respect that if you can. I understand that feelings run high on this issue, believe me, and we absolutely respect that and that is why we are genuinely here to listen. I do not say that in any offensive way; I say that sincerely. 862 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: And Hansard, chair.
863 The CHAIRPERSON: That is right. With the recording of Hansard it can make it more difficult for them to record specific words that are spoken if there is background noise, and it is an orderly way to operate. It gives everyone a fair go. Just for your interest, as well for the gallery, the committee in its deliberations, agreed to hear from Steve Griffiths, MP, who is your local member, of course. He has made a request this morning to be heard and we have agreed to hear him very briefly because our schedule is way out of whack as you can already see. We had hoped to start this at 12.15pm and it is already 20 minutes behind schedule. That is not your fault, Mr Bourke, that is our fault. We thank you very much for appearing before us today. I will introduce the committee for formality's sake, if I may: the Hon. Carmel Zollo; the Hon. John Gazzola; my name is Dennis Hood; the Hon. Michelle Lensink; and the Hon. Terry Stephens is an apology today. I need to read a formal statement before I ask you to commence. Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has given the authority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will be forwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time to present confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate and the committee will consider your request. Parliamentary privilege is accorded all evidence presented to a select committee, but all witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside of this meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. Mr Bourke, we have allocated a maximum of 30 minutes for your presentation including questions, if you can bear that in mind please, and then we will hear from Steven Griffiths. Thank you very much. Please proceed. Mr BOURKE: I do know Carmel and I do know John. I am an active member of the Labor Party, but as I am full of confessions I will tell you that I voted for the Greens in the last federal election and for a long time I was a member of Greenpeace. I am in favour of marine sanctuaries, butand, yes, the 'but' is obvious. That 3.2 per cent that has been offered, to me, I will go to gaol to defend it. That is how it has been. There was time for negotiation. Unfortunately that has been destroyed now. We will sit on that. When I say 'we' I will go back a little bit further, historically. I was one of two people who attended the MPLAG 3 meeting at the Minlaton Town Hall, and that is when they presented the sanctuary zones. Ian Janzow was the chairman; he was there. I am sure Ian will possibly confirm this I am speaking on his behalf. The members of the actual LAG committee had never sighted those sanctuary zones until that point when it came up on the screen on that day. This is why I am saying how peculiar the process was for the community consultation. I believe those boundaries had been drawn up long before the first MPLAG meeting. But again, like Ian before me, I totally endorse everything Ian said about Chris Thomas and certainly about Dave Pearce. Dave has my utmost regard, and I cannot speak highly enough of him. While we are praising up people, I want to praise Steve Griffiths because he has tried to hold a bipartisan approach. He definitely has, and I have had some meetings with Paul Caica, and I know that Paul speaks very highly of him. I am really pleased about the bipartisan approach that Steve has maintained. They are the compliments out of the way, I suppose.
Page 194
P. BOURKE Going back to the Marine Park 11 process, at that town hall, after going to that and the fishing inspector and myself was there and the only other person in the room at the moment I am pretty sure was Ian. Incidentally, Ian, in the latter stage has represented Marine Park 11 and 12 extremely well at the meeting, so I will say that publicly. Because the reaction at this meetingand this came up. I talked to the people and I have talked to four of the people involved. None of them had seen it. I am a representative of the progress and I approached Wendy who is going to speak later on. I said, 'We've got to get something going here. I am going to get an action group. I just cannot believe that the consultation process is so faulty.' So, I was the original instigator of the Port Victoria Action Group which morphed later on into the Marine Park 11 Action Group. People are going to talk after me, so I will not go into that area. What I want to talk about, if I can, is outside the terms of reference. At that particular meeting, there was reference to the indigenous land use agreement. Am I allowed to talk on that? Somebody along here said before that they did not know anything about it. I have had real contact. I will table this later on for you to take. 864 The CHAIRPERSON: If we could just comment on that. Normally, the committee would restrict comments to the terms of reference; however, if you think they are relevant to the committee then we would be happy to hear that. Mr BOURKE: It is just that the initial statement that said that there cannot be any final agreement under the Indigenous Land Use Agreement has resolved. I have messages from Grace Portolesi's office, then it went on to Paul Caica and eventually John Rau's office. Initially, they wouldn't give a direct clarification. I am willing to table these later on; print them off the correspondence. There is about three or four pages of it. In the end, it turns out that the Indigenous people can override the actual sanctuary zones. The other peculiar thing was that the local Indigenous people were given the right, and it has come up at this meeting, to harvest and sell three tonnes of abalone quite legally on the market. I thought, 'That's a bit unusual.' This hasn't been spelt out but I think it is probably an opportunity for them to say, 'Look, if you don't go into the sanctuary zones' a bit of a trade-off. That's the impression I got. I have talked to Paul Caica on two different occasions and that was the impression I got from that, without him spelling that out. Anyway, that is the other part of it. Now, going a little bit further, if you have looked at my submission, and I am not going to go over my submission, I am trying to go into areas that haven't been covered. I've sailed around Australia with my wife for four or five years. I was actually at Queensland when marine parks were being discussed. I was actually at Port Douglas. I attended the meeting there and the majority of people there were in favour of marine parks. There was the diving industry, the tourist industry and what have you. I wandered around and then a bit later on I ended up at Geraldton. I worked very close to Jurien Bay, which here is their latest spiel here on Jurien Bay. I actually worked at two mines there, very close. Most of the people at Jurien Bay commute, they fly in and fly out. In fact, at the last mine that I worked at, which was Niwest Res. at Cataby, which is virtually directly mid-way between Geraldton and Perth, I wasthis is a bit of an asideoffered a permanent job there, at the age of 64. I think it was $2,000 for a four-day week. This is where I make the comparison between the other states and the Yorke Peninsula. The guy's name was Peter too. I said, 'Peter, why are you offering me this job?' He said, 'We just can't get anybody to work here. The wages are too low.' So, at Jurien Bay people weren't prepared to work for $2,000 for four days work. I don't know anybody on the Yorke Peninsula who would walk pastwell, a lot of tradesmen like myself; I am a fitter and turnera $2,000 a week job. So, that is the difference, by comparison. Yet, DENR now, and this is the latest buzz on Jurien Bay and making comparison with house prices. Most of the people who work there are fly in/fly out tradesmen; they have plenty of money. As you may be aware, the coastline of Western Australia, in, say, a 200-kilometre radius we have about two and a half times the coastline that they have around Perth. So, obviously there's a concentration of real estate. So, how they can make a comparison with that?
Page 195
P. BOURKE Then, there is a perpetual story about these whales. I'm going nuts on these whales. Having sailed along the coast there, during the night, a couple of times, I was sprayed with water. They are sort of everywhere. I have seen two pilot whales and I think I've seen a southern right in 27 years of sailing around this gulf. There is some statement alluding to the economical benefits through eco tourism. Well, I can't see it on the Yorke Peninsula anyway, particularly Marine Park 11. I just have a couple more points. As you can probably see, I am adlibbing it. Another thing that really concerns me is the inability of DENR to even maintain the aquatic reserve. This is a total aside, but probably six months ago I was talking to our local dog catcher, Colin Thyer, and he was just bringing back a cat trap from Goose Island. The actual penguins have been decimated by the cats on Goose Island. I believe 19 were killed. What the cats do is get the penguins by the throat, rip open their gullets and take the fish out. Wardang was just covered in dead penguins. That was the Aboriginal Lands Trust, but Goose Island is under DENR. The terns were being decimated, too; this time last year it would have been. So, if the terns nest about now, it must have been December. I mentioned this earlier in one of my original submissions. I am just saying that, if DENR can't control a little aquatic reserve, how are they going to maintain and police whatevera bigger one. That's another issue. How are they going to police it? I know our local coastal patrol was sort of unofficially asked if they would be prepared to police the marine parks, but they absolutely refused. I then made the remark that the only other option was the Country Women's Associationgrandmas on jetskis wielding rolling pins banging us all over the head. How are they going to police marine parks? I know that Pauland I've got a real lot of time for Paul Caica; he is a dead straight shooter and, as you know, his vocabulary of swear words possibly exceeds even my own. After a while, we were having a pretty good yarn. I asked him how they were going to police this. It was going to be community ownership. That's good and nice, but there are not going to be too many takers at Port Victoria going and dobbing in their mates. That's the thing: how are they going to control it, anyway? I point that out. What else have I got to say? I have lots of other things I want to rattle on about. 865 The CHAIRPERSON: Could I suggest, if you are in agreement, that you have another couple of minutes and then we go to questions. Mr BOURKE: Yes, sure. I could go on about all the other things, about proper process, but that's going to be covered by other people. I am just trying to go a little bit outside the square. 866 The CHAIRPERSON: Sure. If you can get to the really significant things that you want to add for another couple of minutes and then we can go to questions. Mr BOURKE: I think the main thing is that the process certainly has some doubt over it. The only other thing is that I am rather relieved that Paul Caica is still the environmental minister. That's probably it. I don't know if you have read my submission, but that says it all, if you are interested. That's about it. 867 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We appreciate that and your frank views. A couple of questions from me and then I will hand over to the committee. You have touched in general terms on the consultation process, and that is one of our specific terms of reference. Can you give me specifics, in your view, of what was either good or bad? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Mr BOURKE: Okay. I went to the first unofficial meeting which was down at Point Turton. The hall was chock-a-block full. A couple of peoplea chap is here now, Quentin MacDonald, behind metried to speak about Chinaman Wells, which was an absolute farce; that area where they said, 'We're going to avoid put the marine sanctuaries around that area.' Some other people are going to talk about that later on. Quentin got up to speak and he got talked down, overruled, and he couldn't even get his statement off the ground. The consultation process was as Ian Wintonwe were talked down to, not necessarily by Dave, but he had to hold his you know, he is the messenger. There was no direct input. You were told what they were going to do.
Page 196
P. BOURKE 868 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Sorry to interrupt you; who was holding that meeting? Who was chairing it? Mr BOURKE: The one down at RickabyMalcolm Clifton, and the progress lady. David was there and so was Ian Janzow, actually. Did I say Rickaby? sorry, Turton. 869 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: So it wasn't DENR.
Mr BOURKE: No, this was one of the first action meetings. Actually, I attended the last three MPLAG 11 and 12 meetings and I attended two of the Marine Park 13 meetings just as an observer. It wasn't so much what was said at the meeting but what was said over the radio. I know Paul Caicaobviously what he said is confidential, but he made it very clear to me that some of the information was being not misrepresented but twisted between the process where David had given it to him. ChrisI've lost mywhat's his name. 870 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thomas.
Mr BOURKE: Chris Thomas, yes. I'm having a senior moment. Between what Chris Thomas said and what got fed down to Paul Caicait was twisted around. 871 The CHAIRPERSON: My question is really about consultation with the department, with DENR itself. Do you have any comment to make on that? Mr BOURKE: Well, my comments really are that I had a lot of private consultations. I was one of the instigators. I found my personal consultation not the meeting consultationgreat, no complaints at all. It was fine, no problems with that. But on the big stage and to the average person, they didn't have a chance. 872 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: You referred in your evidence to hostility and angst at meetings and so forth. From your view, can you explain where that came from? Mr BOURKE: Observation. The greatest one of all was certainly down at Edithburgh Town Hall, which Peter Stockings and 873 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Why do you think people were angry? Mr BOURKE: Just totally pissed off over all the lies that had been told misrepresentation. Peter had to close the meeting and go into camera. It's a while back, but people were getting very, very angry. I think there may have been a subtle police presence there; I'm not too sure about that. It was just that we had been denied the process of consultation. That was it this was imposed on us. 874 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Do you think people were stirred up, so to speak, by either their local member or by the CAG? Mr BOURKE: I would really like to think that Steve Griffiths stirred us up. No, they were definitely not stirred up by Steve. Steve has held a beautiful middle ground, okay? What was the other bit? 875 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Or the community action group?
Mr BOURKE: Well, I was part of the community action group. My bloody job was for sure to stir the community up, and I'm very proud of that, okay? But I would like to still think, as I said, that I am very much pro-conservationI really am. My reason for getting involved was the inequity of the whole system, not because I wanted to have some bee in my bonnet about the marine parks in particular. In fact, to be perfectly honest, it's not my biggest worry at all. It was just purely the inequity, the process. It's hard to be specific, but there was no true community consultation of what is going on now, which should have gone on before. 876 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Thank you for your submission. I guess what we have heard a lot of people express is their disappointment in the process of consultation. You have added to that. We are here to listen. Like everybody else, I certainly appreciate that the draft management plan is not ready yet, and you will have a further opportunity to be consulted at that time. 877 The CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions from the committee? Do you have anything you would like to say in closing?
Page 197
P. BOURKE Mr BOURKE: No, I have covered it all. As I said, I can rattle on about everything that is going to be covered. I have just tried to say a little bit about that. Thank you all very much for indulging me. Probably my final word is that what I've heard so far I virtually totally endorse, including the fishing licences, but that's another story. I reckon it's a great idea. 878 The CHAIRPERSON: That's definitely not in our terms of reference. Peter, thank you sincerely for your evidence. Mr BOURKE: Thank you very much.
Page 198
WITNESS: STEVEN GRIFFITHS, member for Goyder, Parliament House, Adelaide 5000, called and examined: 879 The CHAIRPERSON: We will go straight to our next witness. This is somebody you probably know well, Steven Griffiths, your local MP, member for Goyder. Steven approached me a little while ago and the committee has agreed to hear his evidence, so we have no idea what he is about to saythat's always dangerous. Steven, you said you only wanted a couple of minutes. Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. 880 The CHAIRPERSON: Try to keep it short, please, and we will ask quick questions. I am required to read an opening statement. Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has given the authority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will be forwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time to present confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate and the committee will consider your request. Parliamentary privilege is accorded all evidence presented to a select committee. However, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside this meeting. I have no doubt you are fully aware of that. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that that same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. Thank you, Steven. Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you, Mr Chairman and the committee for being prepared to allow me to speak briefly. I just want to set the scene. I have lived on the Yorke Peninsula from the age of four until I was 32, and then again from 38 until now, 49. I have lived at Yorketown and fished south of Yorketown, from Edithburgh, Sultana Point, Marion Bay and Port Moorowie. Since living in Maitland for the last 11 years, I have fished on both sides of the gulf. I am not very good at it, but I do appreciate it and enjoy the opportunity it provides. Yorke Peninsula itself is rather unique, I think, in that it has something like 20 per cent of the state's boat ramps. It has built the majority of its economic growth over the last 50 years probably on recreational fishing opportunities. Agriculture will always be the main focus and other industries are expanding, too. From my observation, having worked in the public sphere since the age of 16, in local government and now in parliament, people will come to Yorke Peninsula first for a fishing opportunity, then maybe it's camping and fishing, then it's a caravan park and fishing, then it's a shack and fishing, and then hopefully it's a full-time residency after that. There appear to be thousands of people who have made that transition through, so the peninsula is important to them. When the marine parks became more known to the public and I do acknowledge that it does have a longer history and there was a debate that occurred within the parliament in 2007, but there were still very few people within the wider community who had a perspective on what the impact might be. I also agree with the principles behind marine parks, and I have tried to state that to every public meeting that I have attended since this process began probably about 13 months ago to make them understand that that's my position, because I respect the need to preserve that marine environment. However, my principles are very strongly based around the fact that we need to preserve the economic benefit to the area, too. It was probably from mid-November last year that I started to receive telephone calls, and it would be in the hundreds. I say that without any fear of being caught out on that. It would have been at least 10 telephone calls per day for probably three months solid, continually talking to people, not just on the phone but also attending any meetings. It was the topic of conversation for the peninsula over the November, December, January, February, March period. Because we have so many people here, they all wanted to know. As an example of the sort of contact I was having, I had a telephone call from a chap who comes to Port Victoria irregularly who said to me, 'Can I still go there and take my family for a walk on the beach?' That's the ultra extreme of the fear that existed within a community. I also heard the calls of, 'It's going to lower our real estate values; we are going to sell up and move to
Page 199
S. GRIFFITHS somewhere else,' and it was Port Victoria people that were telling me thatsecond-hand, from property owners within that area, because there is a strong Greek ownership of properties in Port Victoria, and they were going to go elsewhere. I probably knew half of the people for the LAG meetings for sanctuary zones 11, 12, 13 and 14, and did not know the other half. Of the half that I did know, some of those were very long term. I had conversations with the LAG members concerned about the process really early on, probably end of November. I had one LAG member come to me on the basis that they were intending to create a petition. Now, they themselves are the informed group. They are the ones that have been engaged by the minister to get the message out to the community. When I found out from them that DENR had put lines on maps and that the LAG group, who have the local expertise, had not been used to develop the lines on the maps, I was immediately concerned about that, because I believe that's a flaw in the process. I understand that we need to have lines on mapsthere's no doubt about thatbut it has to be based upon sound science and recognition of the impact it will have on a community. That's why, in later stages, probably from about April onwards, I have been concerned about the economic modelling issues. The Hon. Mr Gazzola asked the question to the Yorke Peninsula council people about whether they have done any economic modelling. I wrote to the minister to say that it was my position that the economic modelling should help form the basis of the sanctuary zone boundaries. Yes, you have to look at the 14 key areas where the science demands the locationthe different types of bottom, water depths and that sort of thingbut you also have to look at the effect on a community. The peninsula is built around small townsit really isand the businesses rely upon the transient people moving through during the peak holiday times. It is the cream on the top to give them the capacity to operate for the rest of the year, and Stansbury and all the coastal towns are similar to that. The people that run the businesses there understand that. When this sort of talk started to happen and the impact of a 10 per cent overall marine water target to be a sanctuary zone, that is when people became alarmed, because the sums calculated that 25 per cent of each of the out-of-boundary zones had to be declared as a sanctuary zone. Immediately, it became a bit of a NIMBY situation. I have also been at meetings where people have been asked to draw lines on maps and they have deliberately chosen areas that are not their fishing grounds. I have had concerns put to me about the 2,000 people who responded by identifying their preferred fishing spots early onI think it was last yearand that mapping was to be used to identify sanctuary zone opportunities that did not capture those areas, but they came back to me and said, 'The information I gave about my fishing spot is part of the sanctuary zone now.' All of these things filtered through to a great sense of concern amongst a community. The council did come into it eventually, a little bit late, and I think that was probably due to a transitional period between CEOs, but there is an overall level of community concern now that really wants to believe the process will work. It really does want to have a sanctuary zone declared that allows not only the environmental impacts to be considered but also, importantly, the community to have a future. The greatest example to me is the Port Victoria, Balgowan and Chinaman Wells group. The amount of work that Amanda, Wendy and all their committee members have done is truly inspiring. They have gone to a great deal of effort to research it. It is not just an emotional argument they have put; they have actually got the science behind their proposal for the 3 per cent range, which allows an opportunity for not only the principles to be preserved but also their town to grow. People use that redneck sort of language, but I have been to meetings at Edithburgh, Marion Bay, Port Victoria, Burnside and Balgowanlots of people and lots of emotions, but there has not been a lot of yelling and screaming. It has actually been quite reasonable people that have posed questions, that have been answered as best as they can by David Pearce and others that have been there, but the community still expect from its lawmakers a situation that will allow them to have a future, and they are fearful that is not going to be there. I want to urge the committee to consider the fact that the economic modelling has to be as important as the environmental impact. We have to be able to afford to provide the scope
Page 200
S. GRIFFITHS for what our conscience demands of us environmentally and socially, and the only way to do that is a strong economic future. I have asked the minister specifically to disregard agricultural production when they do the economic modelling for our communities and the marine parks, because you have to look at what the business effects are on those towns solely, with agriculture taken out of itlike the visitors and the people that want to go fishing and the impact it will have. I am not sure about the comment from Ian Winton of one Edithburgh pub closing. I would like to think that is not correct, but we have to keep visitors coming to the peninsula. The peninsula has about 500,000 visitors per year and it gets as many as 150,000 people in its national park all the way down the bottom. Those people spend about 1.7 million nights in the area. To them, the loss of a fishing opportunity becomes a reason to go somewhere else. 881 The CHAIRPERSON: Steven, I think we absolutely accept that. I am just conscious of time. Is there anything pressing you really want to add? Mr GRIFFITHS: No. 882 The CHAIRPERSON: Just before we go to questions, perhaps I will respond briefly. As chairman, I am required to be independent of having a strong position either way, but what you have said makes a lot of sense to me. That would be my position. 883 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I was going to ask you, Steven, if you had written to the minister. You have indicated you have. Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. 884 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Would you be able to make available that correspondence to us as the committee, and particularly his response? Mr GRIFFITHS: Certainly. Yes, anything I have written to the minister and his reply I will forward on. 885 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: His reply as well. Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. 886 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I just want to consider your submission and perhaps call you back, Steven. 887 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you for the time, Mr Chairman. 888 The CHAIRPERSON: Can I say to the gallery, thank you very much. We are really pleased you are here. We want to consult the community and it helps when you have people in the room to do that, so we appreciate it very much.
Page 201
WITNESSES: WENDY BRUSNAHAN, STAN SQUIRE, AMANDA WHEELER, and ROLAND EVANS, all of Port Victoria 5573, called and examined: 889 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much everyone. You are incredibly punctual; that's impressive. Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has given the authority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will be forwarded to you for examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish any time to present confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate and the committee will consider your request. Parliamentary privilege is accorded all evidence presented to a select committee. However, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside of this meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. Thank you very much for appearing before us. We appreciate your time. We are here to listen. Please proceed. Ms BRUSNAHAN: Good afternoon. My name is Wendy Brusnahan. I am a thirdgeneration member of the Port Victoria community and have been secretary of the Port Victoria Progress Association for the last four years. I am also secretary of the Marine Park 11 Action Group. Three other panel members will speak today: Stan Squire on scientific evidence available to guide the design and management of marine parks; Amanda Wheeler on the detrimental effects to the commercial fishing industry and to recreational fishers; and Mr Roland Evans on the economic impact and detrimental effects to property values. I will now introduce our submission and then speak to the consultation process. We are fighting for the survival of our three communities. Our action group has the endorsement of over 1,000 signatories for our cause. Over 60 per cent of the property owners live off Yorke Peninsula and travel deliberately to the east coast of Spencer Gulf in Marine Park 11. We are all at the end of the road. Today, you would have travelled a route that our rec fishers and tourists travelyou came the long way. There is no scenic drive or little towns to visit on a day trip. People come here predominantly to fish. If they cannot fish they will go elsewhere. They have told us so. All three communities depend on these fishing tourists to keep us alive. Only 400 permanent residents live here. On long weekends, at Christmas and at Easter there can be an overall influx of 2,000 extra people on any given day. Weekends are when the communities come alive. People come here to fish and for lifestyle. There is nothing else. There are no national parks, no ecotourism. Over 60 per cent of local business income is from fishing-related tourist trade. There are no other industries, although David Pearce from DENR has told us in an email and at meetings that we can set up eco-businesses just like they do on the east coast of Australia David is smiling over thereto watch the whales frolic in Spencer Gulf. Without the rec fishers, their families and friends, Port Victoria as a town is not viable. Businesses will close, property prices will decrease further, and people will move; that is a given. The pristine conditions of the Marine Park 11 habitat show that the communities are longtime caring custodians. Why would we destroy something we love and we depend on? I will now address the community complaints about the consultation process. We, the Marine Park 11 group, believe that the lack of consultation between the government agency DENR and the local communities has right from the start of the whole marine park process isolated small communities into packs, and DENR have sat back and waited and watched the underinformed groups give up DENR's required amount of area through sheer frustration. You have already heard the same common complaints from around the state about DENR and the sham of their consultation process over and over again. These are also of deep concern to our community members, especially that most communities are accepting of the concept of marine parks with the successful management of the marine environment by Fisheries as in the past, just like our aquatic reserve around Goose Island, but and this is the butare very unhappy about the inequitable placement of marine parks and the size of the sanctuary zones and the fact of DENR bullying communities to accept their very large sanctuary zones (that is
Page 202
W. BRUSNAHAN S. SQUIRE A. WHEELER R. EVANS 28 per cent in our case), and they would just not listen to the issues we raised. Size was always paramount. There are some specific concerns about the consultation process from park 11. As parks 11 and 12 are in different locations and include three different bioregions, from December 2010 we began requesting two separate MPLAG meetings. The reply was constantly that it could not be done. Park 11 is unique in that we are a very small park (only 784 square kilometres) and that there is a very big Indigenous-owned island slap bang in the middle, with an adjoining large area of curved land around a very shallow bay. The whole marine park 11 water depth is under 25 metresnot much area to play around with. DENR put the sanctuary zone lines around our high-density fishing areas (which were identified by the SAMPIT survey) exactly where they said they weren't going to put them. At a large public meeting called by the Port Vic Progress in January 2011, 250-plus people listened to DENR's information through Dave Pearce. When David was asked who put the marine park boundaries where they were and why the millionaire row towns were not included, he told a packed hall, 'From a political perspective, it makes sense to disrupt the least number of people,' which to me equals votes. In the full response, we did not hear a word about environmental values. What right has DENR to decide which towns are expendable and which towns will survive? Recently, the Conservation Council of SA, through Kathryn Warhurst, offered me financial grants for our communities if we increased our proposed sanctuary zone area of 3.2 per cent in marine park 11. We refused. 890 The CHAIRPERSON: Can you repeat that, please?
Ms BRUSNAHAN: The Conservation Council of SA, through Kathryn Warhurst, offered me, via a phone call, financial grants for our communities if we increased our proposed sanctuary zone area of 3.2 per cent in park 11. 891 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Who is Kathryn Warhurst? Ms BRUSNAHAN: Kathryn Warhurst is the Ms WHEELER: South Australia. 892 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: She's a paid Ms BRUSNAHAN: Yes. Ms WHEELER: Well, I'm of the understanding she is. If you want to know more, obviously you would have to find that out yourself, but that's our understanding. Ms BRUSNAHAN: And that was in an hour-long phone call. 893 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I think you mentioned millionaire row towns. Ms BRUSNAHAN: Yes. 894 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Which ones are those? She's the community person for the Conservation Council of
Ms BRUSNAHAN: We were referring to Black Point on the East Coast and to Moonta and Wallaroo on the West Coast of Yorke Peninsula. There are no marine parks anywhere near them. 895 The CHAIRPERSON: Wendy, are you happy to take questions now? There is some interest in Ms BRUSNAHAN: Well, as long as that doesn't impact on the other members. 896 The CHAIRPERSON: No, I'll make sure they have time. I just want to ask, if you are able to give specifics: what was offered? Ms BRUSNAHAN: The offerings were that our area was too low, and I will give you a bit of background. It was on a Monday morning and, luckily enough, I'm a teacher and I had
Page 203
W. BRUSNAHAN S. SQUIRE A. WHEELER R. EVANS a couple of free lessons so I could answer my telephone. On the Sunday evening at 6pm (Amanda and I had been meeting all day), we emailed our submission for the 14 May MPLAG meetingthe last onewhen we had to give them our last figure of sanctuary zone size. We emailed that at 6 o'clock on 8 May to Dave Pearce and Ian Janzow. At 10am, the next morning, Kathryn Warhurst phoned me and said that the only thing wrong with our submission was that we didn't have enough area and that she felt that she could offer us financial incentives to assist tourism in the town actually, if the rec fishers went they could help other tourists cometo help us keep tourists in the town. That was on the proviso that we upped our 3.2 per cent before the 14 May meeting, so that was all right. 897 The CHAIRPERSON: To what: was a figure nominated?
Ms BRUSNAHAN: She did not nominate a figure. She just said that it wasn't enough, that it would cause problems and that we would be better off if we gave more percentage. 898 The CHAIRPERSON: Just to be clear: this is an employee of the conservation council not DENR? Ms BRUSNAHAN: No, very clear with that. 899 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: And the financial incentives were by way of grants. Ms BRUSNAHAN: She intimatedwell, she didn't intimate, she told me that she would help us get grants for tourism infrastructure in the town. My reply to her was, 'What good is a fantastic toilet if they don't drive down the road to use it?' 900 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: And you understand that the grants were not targeted at you specifically as an individual but as the group? Ms BRUSNAHAN: Yes, as I was a representative of the group at that stage. I am the secretary of that group so 901 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Yes. I just want to be very clear. Ms BRUSNAHAN: No, I am very clear that it was at the three communities. 902 bribe. Ms BRUSNAHAN: I'm not putting it in those words, no. 903 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Did you say in your submission that you were concerned that you would obviously see a loss of tourism and she was responding to that perhaps? Could I suggest that? Ms BRUSNAHAN: The whole crux of our three groups has been the economic viability of our towns which will be seriously disadvantaged by large sanctuary zones. That is the whole reason this committee was formed. 904 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: So she was responding to that? The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Yes. You are not suggesting that you were offered a
Ms BRUSNAHAN: She was responding to the size that we recommended be for Marine Park 11, which was 3.2 per cent. 905 The CHAIRPERSON: What was your response to that?
Ms BRUSNAHAN: Not very nice. I virtually said to her that the community had been surveyed and that was the community's wishes, that they feel that 3.2 per cent will be a figure that it could live with that would give some sanctuary zones for habitat and biodiversity protection, while also allowing our towns to be economically viable, because our towns exist on tourismrelated trade. There is no if, there is no but. You will hear some figures later on. That was the crux of the matter. She rang me to get us to up our 3.2 per cent before the 14 May MPLAG meeting. That was her pure intent of the phone call. 906 The CHAIRPERSON: Was that contact with you unsolicited?
Page 204
W. BRUSNAHAN S. SQUIRE A. WHEELER R. EVANS Ms BRUSNAHAN: By whom? 907 The CHAIRPERSON: You hadn't made previous contact with her?
Ms BRUSNAHAN: Kathryn Warhurst had been invited to one of our Marine Park 11 action groups to put the view from the conservation side of it. We had invited her to come to talk at one of our meetings, which she duly did. That was, I think, about a week before the MPLAG 5 meeting. We had asked for a conservation viewwe wanted to have a well-rounded viewso she came to speak at our meeting, and then left the meeting while we then made decisions from the community input as to what we would actually put, which was the 3.2 per cent. I emailed her and said, 'Thank you very much for attending. We appreciate you giving up your time.' You could have knocked me over with a feather when I received that phone call. 908 submission? The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Did you ask her how she knew what was in your
Ms BRUSNAHAN: No, I did not. I guessed from the very close relationship between the conservation groups and DENR that possibly it may have come through there. As I said, we emailed our final submission with the 3.2 per cent. We could have changed it after our first submission but the community said that 3.2 was what they could live with. I emailed that at 6pm to th DENR and to Ian Janzow. It would have been Sunday, 8 May. On Monday morning, the 9 , at 10am I received this phone call from Kathryn Warhurst. How she knew that was our final position she may have guessed, but how she knew that we had not upped it to 5 per cent I do not know. 909 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I think it is important that I ask this: what is the proposal now? We still have a draft management plan, but what is now proposed Ms BRUSNAHAN: That was our last opportunity to put a proposal. The proposal th that all areas had to put to DENR was by the last MPLAG meeting, the 14 , for 11 and 12; other areas had different dates. So from the MPLAG 4 meeting, when we initially presented 3.2, we actually went back and resurveyed our community, talked to a lot of people, had our meetings, and the people said 'No; 3.2 is what we can live with, 3.2 is what will keep our businesses, the four businesses in the town, running.' So we re-presented that 3.2 as our final submission. But in between the meeting that Kathryn Warhurst attended and the MPLAG 5 meeting of 14 May we could have changed our position; we may have put in 4 per cent, we may have put in 5 per cent, who knows? Only we knew. 910 The CHAIRPERSON: I am conscious that we have other people who want to speak. Do you have anything else pressing that you? Ms BRUSNAHAN: Actually I do; I have a couple of things about the MPLAG process, if I can just go through those. 911 The CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead.
Ms BRUSNAHAN: Requests for membership of the MPLAG had very constrictive criteria; you had to agree with all three to be considered: you had to be committed to the creation of parks in your local area, you had to be prepared to be an advocate for marine parks in your local area, and you had to be committed to attend meetings. When the make-up of the MPLAG for 11 and 12 was announced, of the 14 members 11 were affiliated with park 12, two came from the Point Pearce Aboriginal community, and onethe lastwas a farmer 12 kilometres from the coast of marine park 11. What voice did our three communities have with the consultation process? There was not one local resident from the three marine park 11 communities on the MPLAG. How just was that? The MPLAG was making decisions on the future viability of our communities with little local knowledge. Just recently the regional impact survey conducted by EconSearch, in association with the Australian Institute for Social Research and Dr Hugh Kirkman, was commissioned by DENR as per the Act. It required information about the potential social and economic impacts on the communities adjacent to marine parks. We were recently advised that the MPLAG has filled
Page 205
W. BRUSNAHAN S. SQUIRE A. WHEELER R. EVANS them outor they were asked to, as it wasn't mandatorybut without any consultation from anyone in our three communities. What does a person residing in the Mid North and belonging to a 'Friends of' group on Southern Yorke Peninsula know about the potential social and economic impacts on our three coastal communities? Did EconSearch or AISR come and talk to the locals? No; they conducted an online survey, no other method. One local farmer does not even have a computer that's the fellow on the MPLAGso how can he actually give any input? Did they survey our local communities? No; they asked the MPLAG members to give opinions on marine park 11. So we ask: what data is included for park 11 in the management plan that is presented to the minister and which is supposed to reflect the social and economic impact on park 11? We won't know about it until you do. So there you have it: the supposed consultation process. If DENR and the government don't take notice of our concerns it will be the possible demise of many small coastal towns and communities around the state. For us, in park 11, it will be the slow and certain death of our three communities. Thank you. Mr SQUIRE: Stan Squire. My background is that I hold a masters degree in geography from Cambridge University and am a retired high school geography specialist. I am also author of numerous geography textbooks, with a strong influence on environmental issues. I have always firmly believed, and preached, that a sound scientific background is the springboard to analysing any environmental issue. I would like to speak to the science side, which is part 3 of our submission. I begin by challenging the statement by Allan Holmes of DENR to this committee that the best available science has been used in the process to date: in our marine park 11, nothing could be further from the truth. Central to the Marine Parks Act is the protection and conservation of biological diversity and marine habitats. So far, DENR has been surprisingly lacking in comments on biological diversity, particularly fish, and has mainly focused on marine habitats. When the marine park 11 proposed sanctuary zones were worked out in 2010, DENR used data on our marine park from this document, the 'Environmental economic and social values of the Eastern Spencer Gulf Marine Park,' which is a bit of a mouthful. This showed that 33 per cent was unmapped habitat, 34 per cent seagrass habitat, and 30 per cent reef habitat. I would just like to stress that that was the data source on which the sanctuary zones were formulated. However, five months later, in April 2011 they sent us a rapid assessment document to help us work out our final MPLAG proposal for the size of sanctuary zones. Now, in this document, the unmapped habitat had doubled to 66 per cent of the park and the seagrass and reef habitats were reduced, respectively, to 17 and 15 per cent; that's down from 34 and 30 per cent, as was stated a few months earlier. This information is actually shown on page 11 on the graph, if you choose to look at that. This is a remarkable difference. Let's not forget that the sanctuary zone boundary decisionsthis 28 per cent we have been talking aboutwere made with that 2010 data as the source, not the 2011 revised data. But it gets worse. The rapid assessment for suggesting zones, sent to us in mid-April, had tables and maps of marine habitats which were located in the wrong depths of water. We contacted DENR with our concerns, and one dayjust one daybefore the final MPLAG meeting which Wendy spoke of when submissions closed, we received the revised assessment version 2, with the data that we had pointed out amended. The original version went to the shredder and was taken off the website to hide the mistakes and errors they had made. Some of this information, if you choose to look at it, is mapped and graphed on pages 11 and 13 of our submission. We received no apology from DENR, just a concocted statement that they had used Geoscience Australia data for the depths of water in the original version; sorry, I think for 'used' we should be using the term 'misused' the data. To show how bad the errors were, I will give just two examples, but there were more. In the original version, the unmapped areas, supposedly in water nought to 10 metres, were extensive and cover 263 square kilometres. Much of that was in
Page 206
W. BRUSNAHAN S. SQUIRE A. WHEELER R. EVANS water that was 20 metres deep, not nought to 10. In version 2, the 263 square kilometres was corrected to 18 square kilometresa dramatic change, I would suggest. A second example: on the reef map, nought to 10 metres in the original version, a lot of the reef was in water again much deeper than 10 metres. This was corrected, with a reduction from 120 square kilometres to 74 square kilometres. How wrong can DENR be in analysing the marine habitats? I have one last point on the marine habitats of our park. DENR advised us that two of its habitat maps were the basis of decision-making, but at the final MPLAG meeting it was declared that one of these, the national habitat map which is a DENR mapwas only 80 per cent accurate and had been discounted. It's a bit late to be telling us that at such a meeting. How can our community, minister, or the SA public have any confidence in advice and decisions handed down in these matters by this government department? I repeat Allan Holmes's statement, 'The best available science is being used in the processes to date.' How awfully wrong this statement is with respect to Marine Park 11. When I first came to teach in South Australia in the 1970s, I told my students that the implementation of the Coast Protection Act of South Australia by the then Department of Environment was world-class best practice, because of the solid scientific work that had been carried out before any work in the field began. I now find it incredible that this same department is so out of its depth in this marine park environmental issue, based on the information I have presented in relation to this park. In conclusion, the total injustice of railroading the process of establishing marine parks with such obvious lack of detailed scientific knowledge should not be allowed to go through, particularly as this threatens the future viability of our communities. 912 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Stan. We will go to Amanda now, if we can, and then we will go to questions. Ms WHEELER: Yes, sure. My name is Amanda Wheeler. I am a third-generation fisher in the area of Marine Park 11. I was the second female in this state to own and operate a marine scale licence, with my sister being the first. In recent years, I have focused on our landbased processing business, as in 2005 100 per cent of my family's in-shore net fishing grounds were taken from us by the government, and over the last six years we have struggled and diversified our business to survive. We have shifted focus to line fishing and value-adding to our product. We buy from other fishermen in Marine Park 11, process locally caught fish and sell to locals and tourists from our retail shop at Port Victoria, as well as supplying fish to many outlets all over the Yorke Peninsula, this state and Australia. With the government threatening to implement large sanctuary zones in Marine Park 11 over prime fishing grounds, we will see the demise of our business. We will lose access to productive fishing areas and therefore will not be able to catch local fish at an affordable price to consumers. People have the right to eat fish whether they buy it or catch it themselves. This whole issue and the process thus far is causing a huge amount of angst, frustration, fear, stress, and confusion for many fishers and their families. I would now like to touch briefly on the detrimental effects of large sanctuary zones in small coastal communities to both commercial and recreational anglers. In a recent boat ramp survey, Port Hughes and Port Victoria were classed as the two busiest boat ramps on Yorke Peninsula. Marine Park 11 hosts a number of commercial fishers, charter operators, and enthusiastic recreational anglers who will be affected if large sanctuary zones are implemented. From speaking to commercial fishers in Marine Park 11, it was evident that fishers would suffer between 25 to 85 per cent displacement. These numbers are hugely concerning. Where will these fishers go? We will see them struggle and move into other areas already being fished, adding pressure. Professor Colin Buxton, in his FRDC research project, emphasised that this would, 'lead to a network of pristine areas in a sea of degraded habitat', but DENR and the Greens cannot
Page 207
W. BRUSNAHAN S. SQUIRE A. WHEELER R. EVANS see this eventuating. They believe locking up large areas in sanctuary zones will benefit our fishery with a spillover effect and an idea the fish will get bigger. To me, our action group and the remaining fishing fraternity, this is truly laughable, especially in Marine Park 11, where all targeted species are migratory. An article published in the Viewpoint Aquatic Conservation Journal reported that no-take MPAs are ineffective for higher migratory species, and Professor Kearney recently stated that:
The whole concept of spillover remains mythical for areas where fisheries are already well managed, as they are in South Australia.
Safety is another concern. In Marine Park 11, DENR proposed to take three-quarters of the water around Wardang Island, which is an all-weather fishing hotspot, where many recreational anglers come to fish. They have also proposed to take a large section of protected water at Chinaman Wells, which is exactly where everybody fishes inside the reef. With these proposed sanctuary zones, our communities and local Coastal Patrol officers hold grave fears for recreational anglers' safety, as it would see smaller boats fish further out to sea, putting lives in danger, not only adults but also children. The sea is a very unforgiving place, so who will take responsibility? Who takes responsibility when no-one can actually prove the theory that fishing, in particular line fishing, has a detrimental effect to benthic habitat or the functioning of ecosystems? Janine Baker, in her technical report commissioned by DENR, documented that the Troubridge Hill Aquatic Reserve here on Yorke Peninsula established in 1983 has high benthic biodiversity and provided protection for numerous species of reef fish uncommon in many parts of South Australia, even though line fishing is allowed. It is clearly defined in the Marine Parks Act 2007 that, in areas of a marine park designed to provide protection for habitats and biodiversity, it allows activities and uses that do not harm habitats or the functioning of ecosystems and, guess what? Fishing is allowed. These findings give no support for the need for sanctuary zones to protect the benthic habitats or biodiversity in our marine environment. Janine Baker, in her 2000 report also commissioned by DENR, highlighted threats to the in-shore marine ecosystems and biodiversity for South Australia as the continual loss of habitat due to sewage; stormwater discharges; industrial developments; degradation of reefs by sedimentation; damage to reef from boats, anchors and scuba diving activity; urban and rural waste as solid and chemical pollution; heavy metal contamination; by-catch and damage from trawling; introduction of pests and diseases in ballast water; aquaculture discharge; and oil spills. I raise the question: why is fishing, particularly line fishing in Marine Park 11, the only marine activity being excluded, when it is clearly not threatening the benthic habitat or the functioning of ecosystems? The government needs to get serious and start addressing the real threats to our in-shore marine environment before it is too late. A sanctuary zone will not stop coastal run-off, pollution, climate change or acidification of our oceans. It will only stop fishing. In a recent submission to the select committee, DENR touched on the benefits of sanctuary zones in marine parks stating that sanctuary zones would provide an unaltered state by restricting activities such as fishing. This statement is untrue and misleading. Unaltered state: all I can say is ILUA, Indigenous land use agreement. Yorke Peninsula has an ILUA, and I have been made aware that the compensation section will be signed off within weeks. As you would be aware, the ILUA overrides the Marine Parks Act 2007, and this gives the Indigenous community the right to access any sanctuary zone to extract food for cultural purposes. So, DENR's theory on the unaltered state and the whole ideology behind the sanctuary zone is flawed when Indigenous extraction is allowed and scuba diving is a proven threat. The zoning issue is also affecting charter and commercial fishing licences as prices drop with the fear and uncertainty about the ability to make a viable living. A net licence was recently acquired for the price of $75,000, a fair step down from the $200,000 price tag in the recent 2005 net buy-back. We are not seeing any new young people entering the fishing industry, and who can blame them? When my son is old enough, I will not be encouraging him to enter the
Page 208
W. BRUSNAHAN S. SQUIRE A. WHEELER R. EVANS fishery, as my experience with government and its departments has only led to heartache and hardship. Why would any parent wish this for their child? These marine parks, with the implementations of large sanctuary zones, will tear rural families apart and destroy coastal townships. Fishers, both commercially and recreationally, do not want a handout but a hand up from the government. We want a fair go. We want security from government; we want the ability to access safe water to harvest our resource; to catch seafood with our families for recreation; and to harvest food for the state and the country as a commercial industry. Australia needs food security for the future, and closing prime fishing areas with no proven benefits in a high migratory species fishery is simply outrageous. 913 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Amanda.
Mr EVANS: I am Roly Evans and I would like to speak on the subject of socioeconomic issues for Marine Park 11. The background of Marine Park 11 is that we have four primary communities: Balgowan, Chinaman Wells, Point Pearce and Port Victoria. DENR has chosen to negotiate with the Point Pearce Indigenous community independently, so our submission is on behalf of Balgowan, Chinaman Wells and Port Victoria. All three communities are at the end of a cul-de-sac road and, therefore, have no through tourism, unlike the main roads on the central and eastern side of Yorke Peninsula. Tourists who come here have planned to come here. If I can use Port Victoria as an example (it is the largest town), it has more houses than people. There are 354 houses and only 346 residents. Half of them are retired. 208 houses are vacant; they belong to weekend fishermen. Ninety per cent of our economy is from retirees and tourists, as only 40 of the residents there are full-time employed, with nine of them being pro-fishermen. Fishing is the attraction of Port Victoria and the other communities. When DENR chose to impose a marine park on our fishing communities, they selected the representatives to represent us supposedly on the MPLAGs. No-one was selected from our communities, as Wendy saidnobody. The end result is that we have now Marine Park 12 people making decisions on Marine Park 11 people in the socioeconomic analysis. The unfortunate thing is that they probably don't know anything about us, so how can our ultimate regional impact statement have any base knowledge. In addition to that, DENR has commissioned Dr Kirkman to conduct a cost benefit analysis of intangible assets of marine parks and, due to his biased support for marine parks, we can only expect our regional impact statement to be railroaded in favour of marine parks irrespective of our financial position. This is not a joke: this is real. We have very little confidence that the regional impact statement for Marine Park 11 will be anywhere near accurate. There are additional reasons for our concerns. The regional impact statement model that they are using is flawed and is primarily designed to make the government look good if the project fails. The government has promoted that the implementation of marine parks will have minimal socioeconomic impact on local communities and the international data shows that there will be significant economic gains to communities by ecotourism, snorkelling, diving tours, etc. Firstly, our boat ramp surveys of those who make up most of our economy, showed us that if the sanctuary zones are largei.e. 28 per cent as proposed75 per cent of those people at the boat ramp will go elsewhere. That is in our research data. We know that 75 per cent is a kneejerk reaction to change; that is not real. So, conservatively, we go to 50 per cent or, ultraconservatively, let's go to 25 per cent who will go elsewhere. If 25 per cent go elsewhere, that is a 20 per cent loss to our economy; that equates to $1 million. That would be catastrophic to Port Victoria. Do you think that would show up in the regional impact statement? No, it won'ta $1 million catastrophic loss to Port Victoria, and it will not show up in the regional impact statement. This is because the model is not community based; it is regionally based. The region has an economy, on a good year, with a good grain crop, of $240 million. What is a $1 million loss in a $240 million economy? Insignificant. Therefore, the
Page 209
W. BRUSNAHAN S. SQUIRE A. WHEELER R. EVANS government has fulfilled its political aim. There will be minimal significant impact on the region. The town is dead. Housing prices would have collapsed. The last two shops that we now have would have gone, if we lose that sort of money. On the subject of housing prices, currently, there is a very low demand for housing and price sales have fallen due to the unknown size of the sanctuary zones and, therefore, the unknown area of the best fishing grounds. That is detrimental to house sales. Our research and knowledge of our communities lead us to calculate the sanctuary zones to be 3.2 per cent maximum to have minimal socioeconomic impact on our community. We were appalled to read the submissions of DENR and the other two conservation groups, who all used the same example, that there would be no house value drops due to large sanctuary zones, and they gave Jurien Bay as the example. All three advocated 25 per cent sanctuary zones and still said there would be no loss to housing values. They deliberately tried to mislead this committee, because they failed to supply support information. What they failed to tell you is that currently the government and developers at Jurien Bay are conducting a joint development to increase the population from 1,300 to 20,000 over the next 20-odd years; they failed to tell you that the government has spent tens of millions of dollars putting in a through tourism roadit used to be a cul-de-sac to Jurien Bayand also on increased infrastructure to the town; they failed to tell you that the developers, the Ardross Group of Companies, has spent millions developing subdivisions and are artificially holding up the price of land and houses at Jurien Bay to protect their own profit; and they failed to tell you that the sanctuary zones at Jurien Bay are 3.7 per cent; not 25 per cent as advocated, 3.7 per cent. This proves our research to be correct and that our submission of 3.2 per cent for us is correct, to achieve minimum socioeconomic impact and no devaluation of houses. In conclusion, what is extremely clear is that DENR has demonstrated to us that it is extremely incompetent on matters of economics and also deliberately deceptive on how it presents its analysis of economic data. Incompetence appears to be a general theme, if you include its previously demonstrated scientific ability and its incorrect selection and representation of community members on MPLAG committees. Thank you. 914 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Roly; thank you all. Are there any questions from the committee? It was a comprehensive presentation. 915 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I just have one, which is similar to the question that I asked of the District Council of Yorke Peninsula at the start, which is in relation to whether you can describe for us quickly the importance of fishing from a commercial point of view. I think you have done that, but what the target species are, and what proportion in your communities that is to the economic benefit? Ms WHEELER: I can tell you that there are four targeted species within our park and they would be King George Whiting, snapper, southern calamari and southern sea garfish. As far as percentages for the economic, I don't have the information to be able to give to you, Michelle. I don't have that. Obviously, if you want to know that kind of information our fishing blocks are 32 and 33ask SARDI. They've got all our information. They know how much our fish is worth, they know what quantities of the fish come out of there and where they come from, so they are the best people to speak to. Sorry that I can't give you any more than that. Mr SQUIRE: Could I just add a comment. In terms of the most targeted species, King George whiting, the most recent SARDI report on King George whiting concluded that, in the case of the Spencer Gulf, there was nothey used the word 'truncation'truncation of the King George whiting evidenced in their research, which makes it somewhat questionable: what is the need? These are migratory fish that are passing through a sanctuary zone. There is a very limited tenure of time that those fish are in that water. Sanctuary also implies a refuge, a safe house, which takes us to the idea that there must be some endangering of species. It is not supported by SARDI research, and DENR has been very quiet about the fish species full stop.
Page 210
W. BRUSNAHAN S. SQUIRE A. WHEELER R. EVANS 916 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Amanda, were you able to have your say or have an input through your association as well as a commercial fisher? Ms WHEELER: We haven't per se. The Alliance, obviously, has been speaking on behalf of us, and obviously we are members of the Alliance. But we have not put any information directly to them, if that answers your question. 917 The CHAIRPERSON: I think we will leave it there. We are right against time; we are a bit over. I think the committee heard the passion in your submissions, and we thank you sincerely. Ms WHEELER: Thank you. Mr SQUIRE: Thank you.
THE WITNESSES WITHDREW
Page 211
WITNESS: IAN JANZOW, 1 Playford Street, Glen Osmond 5064, called and examined: 918 The CHAIRPERSON: Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has given the authority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will be forwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time to present confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate and the committee will consider your request. Parliamentary privilege is accorded all evidence presented to a select committee. However, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside this meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. Please proceed. Mr JANZOW: Thank you, Dennis. I am quite well, but my voice isn't. I lost it completely yesterday. I'll give it my best shot, but don't feel sorry for me in any way. I was going to speak off dot points, but when my voice went I dumped it on paper. I seek your leave just to pass this around so that other people can follow it through if they can't hear me. My dissertation extends to the first three pages only. Thanks for the opportunity to address the select committee on this matter. Over recent months I've been on the move and generally out of range in outback areas of South Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales, but here we are. I would like to acknowledge the assistance I have had, as Chair of parks 11 and 12first of all, from David Pearce, who has had an almost impossible task to exact the real intentions of DENR through an, almost impossible process. Thanks very much, David, and also the Port Victoria Action Group, who were not represented as a community on the LAG, as you've heard, until the very late stages when Amanda attended as a proxy for Joyce Yeomans. We also had members on the LAG who did not attendan Indigenous member and two or three professionals whose attendance was spasmodic. I will come to that. In response to the original invitation to make a formal submission to the committee, in haste upon my departure I sent my report, which was prepared for and signed off by members of the final MPLAG meeting on 14 Maynote that it was 14 May not 23 May. This two-page report is a cornerstone document relevant to this committee's inquiries which does not as yet appear in the list of documents so far, so I have taken the liberty of attaching it to this document so that makes the public record. This is perhaps the most acrimonious initiative affecting coastal communities to be instigated by any government, in my view, in living memory, certainly mine. It almost beggars belief that the government turned what started with general community support for marine parks into such a debacle. The core of this, of course, has to do with sanctuary zones. The twofold reasons are: the extent of the sanctuary no-take take zones within the designated park boundaries, which would lead to serious negative impacts (in some cases destruction) of people's recreational activities and their personal and commercial investment related to this; and, secondly, a poorlyand I do say here almost deliberately perhaps designed consultation program and the way in which the sanctuary zones proposals were introduced. On that point, bear in mind that over 40 per cent of property owners on Yorke Peninsula generally don't live in their premises; they live in Adelaide. There was virtually no initial profile given to this major initiative in the Adelaide area. It was only much later that people in Adelaide caught up. I am very disgruntled about that; it caused me a lot of pain and suffering. In my role as Chair of MPLAG 11 and 12, I have had to deal with the anger and frustration of many people on a face-to-face basis. This should never have occurred to the extent that it did. We are all waiting anxiously for the government's draft management plans and the social and economic impact study. If the government does not accept the advice of the local communities or attempts to fiddle, even in small detail, I predict the real objectives and opportunities for longterm preservation of this pristine marine habitat will be lost in a public campaign that will last all the way until the next election. This is not a negotiation. What the communities have given is, in my view, the best the government will ever get. I also initiated 'chairs sharing' to communicate with the other MPLAG chairs around the state to extract the key issues and understand the degree of the problems around the state,
Page 212
I. JANZOW then meeting with the minister for us all to convey these problems directly. I found that the impact varied considerably, from no problem to total resistance, depending where coastal communities were located. In the most impacted regionshere I speak of the marine parks on Yorke Peninsula notwithstanding that there are also other hot regionsit has been a huge task to convince people not to just say no and to participate in the process to ensure that sanctuary zones can be drawn up that communities can at least live with. On a sundry note, just recentlyin case this gets outBrenton Schahinger (who is the chair of SARFAC and also the MPLAG Chair of Park 14 in the Upper Spencer Gulf) and I were asked to attend a Premier's Award of Excellence function tomorrow night because the MPLAGs around the state have been nominated for an award in the NRM division. Initially we accepted the invitation but after giving it more thoughtI certainly have considered my positionboth Brenton and I have respectfully declined to attend. Nomination could be seen as being for hard work but it's too early yet to see it as excellent until we see all the outcomes: that is, the government's proposals maybe by the end of this year. In relation to the committee's terms of reference, I am not qualified to respond to all six but I present here a brief response to some of them. The first term of reference has to do with the scientific evidence available to guide the design and management of marine parks. A massive amount of scientific information was given to chairs and available to anyone on the first website. Unfortunately, very little information specific to the coastal areas of Yorke Peninsula could be found and if it was there it was hard to find in such a morass of scientific postulation. It was unreasonable for the chairs, MPLAG members or members of the general public to pick out those things specific to them in the time available, bearing in mind the government had much more time and resources to do this compared with the communities: that is, to separate information specific and relevant to the communities. I cast no aspersions but you can understand that the scientific community are prodigious producers of research and information but we found very little specifically to do with our specific communities. The next one was the detrimental effects on recreational fishers I am one of those. This question appears to address marine parks per se. I am not querying your terms of reference. There is general support for marine parks, but what happened when the no-take zones were put on the table was an absolute tragedy. This general support for marine parks has been overridden by the focus on sanctuary or no-take zones as a result of the government's proposal to take upin the case of parks 11 and 1226 per cent of the park area with sanctuary zones. In many cases the sanctuary zones were positioned right over areas where recreational fishers had openly declared their fishing locations using the SAMPIT tool, trusting in declaring their fishing spots that the no-take zones would not be positioned on top of them. I have provided the committee with a map at the back of this document which is where I produced a transparency of the proposal for marine parks overlaid on the SAMPIT data. As you can see, it seems to predominate in the areas that have been fairly heavily mapped. One area that I can speak of with experience is at Marion Bay in zone H. If you look at that, the participation in the SAMPIT was quite low down our way but, nevertheless, you can see it is positioned right over where people move out from the Marion Bay boat ramp. The next one was the detrimental effects to property values through the imposition of marine parks. I'm not qualified to respond on this subject expertly. Nevertheless, it would seem obvious to a mere mortal like me that any significant restriction on recreational fishing to the extent proposed by the government in its no-take zones would lead to a reduction in related personal and commercial investment in local coastal communities, leading to reduced property values. There have been counterclaims by the new green advocates that and I use that word looselyany loss in property values would be counteracted by investment related to marine park experiences, which might include government-funded local information centres. Let's be quite clear about this: many fishers have always been green and there are already marine life diving and observation charters down our way, so the notion that such public initiatives would be an equal counteraction to a reduction in the marine based recreational economy on Yorke Peninsula is, I believe, completely unfounded and postulated using only two or
Page 213
I. JANZOW three stand-out examples in Australia and overseas, not on a robust business case study particular to Yorke Peninsula. This is the issue: particular to our communities. As for the socio-economic impact study being undertaken by EconSearch, the government has set a framework for this study (which was also promulgated by EconSearch, I believe) that requires the study team to report impact on a regional basis. We have heard Roly Evans talk about this much more eloquently than I can and more expertly. However, I would like you, just for a moment, to imagine the scenarioand taking the figures as purely fictitious that the recreational component of the economy of Port Victoria (which is a recreational fishing township in park 11) is, say, $1.6 million. Let's just take that figure. The regional economy in the area from Kadina all the way down to include the foot, which includes economic drivers such as mining, grain, salt and tourism is, say, $250 million per year. The report could find that the impact of the total destruction of Port Victoria is negligible. I have reviewed the government's study framework (and I have professional competence in doing these things) and believe it is highly directive and basically flawed in requiring only a regional impact, not impacts on the health of individual coastal communities. The next one is the complaints by local communities and fishing groups regarding the consultation process. In responding to this issue I will take some sections from my final report, if you like. It won't take long to read it. 919 The CHAIRPERSON: It's up to you. We've got about 11 minutes left, but that would include questions. Mr JANZOW: That'll do, and I would still like some time for questions as well. The point made in that report to the last LAG meeting was that the majority of people agreed with the concept of marine parks and sanctuary zones but were led to believe that these could be designed with minimum impact on their current recreational pursuits and personal and business investment. When DENR issued its sanctuary zones proposal at meeting 3, quite by surprise, it became evident that the socioeconomic impact had not been considered. At this point DENR lost the scientific moral ground and the trust of the people, and the LAGS were placed in a difficult position in their role to represent the community. I personally received 50 to 60 calls and many emails from angry stakeholdersmainly in Adelaideand, collectively, LAG members and I have spent thousands of hours of our personal time trying to recover this situation. This was not anticipated when we agreed to our community roles as volunteers. There are many questions unanswered, or answered with motherhood statements, without adequate supporting documentation about the science: how the extent and location of sanctuary zones were calculated and what threats, other than fishing, should be addressed in specific parks in South Australiaand I mean specifically for parks 11 and 12 on Yorke Peninsula. It is a testament to poor process design that the professional representatives on the MPLAG chose not to fully participate, thereby causing a significant loss of input for the MPLAG's work. Perhaps the hardest task was to convince angry people to come back to the process so that the government could not simply do what it wanted. We were successful in bringing people back to the process, and at MPLAG meeting No. 5our last one for parks 11 and 12at Warooka on 14 May the communities gave advice on what they could give without serious impact to their lifestyle and recreational investment. The government's proposals for no-take zones landed on the table without notice at meeting 3 last year and were regarded by coastal communities as a total betrayaland I refer to the overlay map again. There had been some talk of achieving 10 per cent sanctuary zones across the whole of South Australia's coastline based on discussions at some international scientific forum, but Australia, as I understand it, has not signed up to this number, and no-one in the MPLAGs had contemplated that this goal was to be achieved within the boxes that is, the 19 parks attached at various points to the coastline of South Australia. Those boxes make up about 43 per cent of the coastline, so we had to achieve this massive lift within 43 per cent of the coastline and adjacent to populated coastal communities. Let's look at 5 per cent in the boxes, not 25 per cent. It goes without saying that there are significant stretches of coastline that are not easily accessible to established coastal
Page 214
I. JANZOW communities and some professional reach. These contain pristine marine habitats and are, in effect, already preserved. Earlier this year, the minister decided to dismiss the MPLAGs and not have them complete the original program where they would take back to their communities the government's response to the community advice that is, draft management plans and socioeconomic assessmentand provide further advice to the government. As far as the process of consultation from here goes, a small group of senior Yorke Peninsula representatives, including myself, met with the minister on 15 June this year to debrief on the process to date and to urge the minister to commence the design of further consultation with communities well prior to the draft MPs and economic assessment reports becoming available. We offered to assist with the design but I, for one, have not heard anything since. The major issue (and I will ad lib here) with the first was that there was only an overarching general outline consultation plan. There was never a proper and professionally designed consultation plan with the detail sitting under it that was requiredwith objectives and all those things that people in my company are accustomed to producefor difficult infrastructure and other programs that affect the community. So, DENR's inability to do it in-house, or their reluctance to employ professionals to do this detailed consultation program, has been a major difficulty. Having said that, we still can't see a detailed consultation program for rolling out these management plans. So, I agree with a previous person that, potentially, it will be a series of roadshows where, 'This is what is going to happen, boys.' I have skipped the interstate and international moves to limit the extent of sanctuary zones. I haven't researched it. I am not qualified to make a statement. Finally, the correct balance of general marine park areas to no-take sanctuary zone areas. Again, I am not scientifically or commercially qualified to answer this conundrum. However, I do have nearly 50 years of recreational fishing and diving experience, and the collective experience of my MPLAG members and many other local advisers, in relation to the health of the marine environment on the lower Yorke Peninsula. From this, I believe the advice given to the government by parks 11 and 12 MPLAGs is about right. Please note that, in our case, this advice consists not just of the maps, which is a preoccupation with government considering the advice. It has coordinates delineating the exact locations of the sanctuary zones, and these things are attached, but there are eight overriding conditions of the advice, which are laid out at the end of the report which was signed off on 14 May this year with minor amendments marked in blue, if you are looking at it, which are attached for ease of reference. I won't read them out but they represent the advice to government just as much at the maps do. There is still one remaining area of concern, once the focus moves from sanctuary or no-take zones to other permitted uses. Of the four types of zones defined in the DENR material, no-go, no-take has the highest level. Go but no-take is the sanctuary zones and there is habitat protection and general managed use. I am concerned that the uses currently proposed for habitat protectionand they are laid out by DENR, and they do allow fishingcould be changed as we move to writing the regulations to include further restrictions on recreational and professional fishing. After all, what do you expect from 'habitat protection', which includes all living things in the habitat, including the fish and the migratory fish? I am concerned about it. Still, we are all waiting and watching. In relation to the matters mentioned above, the prime opportunity at this time is for minister Caica, and/or our new Premier, to intervene and set things right. This concludes my statement. Please take a copy and thanks for your time. 920 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ian, we appreciate it very much. It was very comprehensive and addressed the terms of reference perfectly. We will only have a few minutes, I'm sorry, for questions, but can I throw it to the committee? 921 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I was just going to say for the record, you have referred to your experience and your company. What do you actually do, Ian, apart from being a very good recreational fisherman?
Page 215
I. JANZOW Mr JANZOW: I work for a company called Avrecon Pty Ltd, which used to be Connell Wagner. I came to the company 10 years ago and established the advisory group which works on the front end of projects to get them defined, organised, de-risked and so forth. We do a lot of government work to assist in establishing projects on the right foot. We amalgamated with a pre-eminent practice called QED, planners and urban designers, in which there are two or three people who are, in my opinion, the absolute best at community consultation. They devise and design plans specific to the projects and they are within our group of some 30 people. 922 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In your deliberations with your two LAG groups, was the advice that was coming from DENR, 'Don't leave the lines too much, and you have to make it as 25 to 30 per cent of sanctuary zones'? Is that what you were told? Mr JANZOW: No, absolutely not. David was extremely democratic about the whole process, and was very keen for the community to design these no-take zones. I have had reports in other areas where the DENR people were highly directive and almost threatening, and I have emails to back all that up (which are confidential), but I would have to say that David was placed in an extremely difficult position and he did his absolute best. So no, there was no threat and we were encouraged always, along the principles which David brought to the table, about conservation values and the principles of design for marine parks. He lectured us endlessly on that, quite rightly, but there was never any threat or constraint placed on us by him. 923 924 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Thank you. The CHAIRPERSON: Ian, thank you very much
Mr JANZOW: We have ended up with about 8 per cent, depending on where you take the NRM line. 925 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
Mr JANZOW: Dennis, can I just read from this document? This is where we come from. An overarching value statement is that recreational fishing for the population is not only a healthy lifestyle activity, but developing relationships with family and friends that's the social partbut also an opportunity to learn about and respect the marine environment through direct contact with it. For most of us who have been involved, that is where we are coming from. The objectives and the role of DENR in the marine environment should be to encourage these healthy lifestyles, social relationships and environmental learning, while setting aside sections of pristine marine environment where these are consistent with the objectives and overarching value statement (which I have read), and achieve these by gaining public commitment to, and future support for, parks, particularly the no-take zones. Sorry; it is a motherhood statement, but 926 The CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much, I appreciate that.
Page 216
WITNESS: WAYNE WILSON, PO Box 8, Warooka 5577, called and examined: 927 The CHAIRPERSON: Thanks Wayne, I appreciate you coming forward today. We understand there was some to-ing and fro-ing with respect to coming forward to the committee today, so apologies if there was any misunderstanding. You are welcome here today. Mr WILSON: Thank you. 928 The CHAIRPERSON: Obviously, we have limited time, so if you could please be aware of that, but we are hearing a lot of the same things is today, which is a good thing. It is good that the community has the chance to put those views forward and it is consistent, and we welcome your evidence. Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has given the authority of this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will be forwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time to present confidential evidence to the committee, please indicate, and the committee will consider your request. Parliamentary privilege is accorded to all evidence presented to a select committee, although witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statements made outside of this meeting. All persons, including members of the media, are reminded that the same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. Thank you, Wayne. Please begin. Mr WILSON: Thank you very much. I am here today purely to put in a verbal submission. One of my friends and a long-time resident of the Pines has already put in a written submission to the select committee. His name is Colin Chamberlain, and I would like to say that the majority of Colin's report is pretty representative of the feelings of the residents at the Pines. For those of you who do not know where the Pines is, it is predominantly between Corny Point and Point Turton, and there are a few small beaches along there close to the Pines such as Collins Beach and Couch Beach, and these are all in a small cluster area. The Pines probably consists of 200-odd properties. Unlike some of the other communities here, there are only about 50 full-time residents at The Pines, of which I am one, and the rest are shackies. So, it's a situation where there are probably only about 15 per cent full-time and 85 per cent are part-time shackies and fisher people. We don't have a through-road; you have to drive into The Pines. It is a four, five or six-kilometre round trip, so we don't get tourists. It is an area that still looks like a shack area, and we all still want it to look like a shack area. There will be no further development down there, and no bitumen roads, no extra streetlights, and that's the way the residents like it. Predominantly, we just fish and there isn't much else to do there, as in a lot of these coastal areas, and that's why we are all there. I have owned a property there for over 30 years and retired there five years ago. I am secretary of the local Pines Community Association, and I also have a real estate licence and do a bit of part-time real estate to stop myself from going brain dead. The situation with property and real estate in the area is probably fairly obvious, and I think everyone around here is already aware of the fact that once the marine park issues really hit the papers late last year and early this year, and there was a lot of heat on the subject, I went through a period of two months without one phone call, and that really just says it all; not that I do it full-time, but that was unheard of, and I basically went through the summer period without a sale. It's not a situation that can really continue. If things don't change, the whole area will die. We are only fishing down there. There is a general store which closed, which has since reopened, and I can see that closing if the real estate situation continues on in the vein that it is at the moment. Having said all that, I want to go back to the start of this whole process. I would also like to say, in line with what Ian Janzow said, that I have always found David Pearce a very pleasant and helpful person to deal with, and I think he has tried to make the best of a fairly bad job within the limitations of what he has been able to do. I have no angst towards David, which doesn't mean to say that I don't have angst towards the process. The first meeting we ever heard about on the grapevine was at Marion Bay a couple of years ago, so a few of us piled into a couple of four-wheel drives and went down. When we got there, there were a couple of very attractive young girls handing out brochures. We really
Page 217
W. WILSON didn't know anything about the situation, so we quickly read a couple of the bits and pieces on the brochures and started asking the girls questions. They could not answer us; they had no knowledge of the subject there, as they were purely handing out brochures. There was no-one else there from DENR or from the department of environment to answer any of our questions, so we went away from attending that situation probably more confused that what we were before we went. Then of course, later on, things became clearer, and we attended a public meeting at the Point Turton Progress Association, which was fairly small, and people were piling out, mostly trying to look in through windows because there wasn't enough room. David was the presenter there, and we started to get a bit of an idea of what was going on. I have since been to most of the other meetings, including the workshop at Point Turton which was to revise the boundary zones for zone 12. But the one thing that always sticks out in my mind through every meeting process that I have been to is that, because there has been so much heat and angst from the people at the meetings over the subject, it is very easy to ask questions and have them not answered. That is basically how I see it. There have been so many questions left unanswered at these meetings. I am not saying that David necessarily had the answers, but they were fairly pertinent questions and it is very easy for someone running that meeting just to move along and bypass the question, because there is another 10 people with their hand up wanting to ask the next one. It makes the process of ignoring the answers and not producing the information so much easier for the presenter. Questions of a more specific nature were things like: 'Did Johnny Howard agree to marine parks or marine parks and no go zones? If only marine parks, whose idea was no go zones?' They were questions of that nature. 'What has the project cost to date or what will it cost when it eventually gets through and what will it cost to maintain?' Never did I hear an answer to questions like this at any of the meetings when I was there. 'What is the science behind it?' That has been covered so many times since I have been here today that we probably don't need to go into that again. But what is the science behind it? I remember Ian Janzow getting up at a Point Turton meeting and saying, 'Well, Caica has guaranteed that I will receive this information to pass onto you.' To date, I would seriously doubt that that has happened. We have one of the best questions like: 'We have one of the best managed fisheries in the world. Why do we need no go zones?' 'Yorke and Eyre Peninsula areas are in pristine condition. Why put no go zones through them?' 'Why no go zones in the majority of the metro beaches out of Adelaide?' That is one question that David did answer, but the answer was that the area was already destroyed and denuded of seagrass life that it is beyond help. I would have thought that in the context of conservation that that would have been a very good reason to try to do something about it and close off areas there to see if they can get them to regenerate. Once again, as has already been mentioned today, if conservation is really the key in a pristine area like we have down here, why would you want to corral all the fishermen who are here into a small area? The area that was originally proposed by DENR out in front of our areas and over the Corny Point area represented probably 80 per cent of our fishing grounds, and that would be sporties and pros alike. I know that the proposal has changed a bit with the revised zones, but if the proposal were to go through on that basis, you would be forcing 100 per cent of fishermen into 20 per cent of the area, and it is a very similar story for a lot of the other zones. It seems to me that is just about the opposite to conservation. That is absolutely savaging smaller areas for the sake of leaving large areas vacant. It really just doesn't make sense to me. We would all be fishing in the same area. When I asked David a question one day about what the department's view on the effect of housing in the area would be on real estate, I remember he answered that the department felt that because of the conservation factors and the fact that they were going to preserve these areas, the housing values and whatnot would actually improve. I think he referred at the time to some example interstate where it had happened up in Queensland and New South Wales. I must confess I was surprised, but I would love to sit him down and show him my level of inquiry on real estate at the moment. It is also a factor that you might sit there and say, 'Well, hang on, there's
Page 218
W. WILSON more than one cause for the real estate decline.' I mean, the Adelaide market has absolutely crashed as well, which it has, as you would probably know yourselves from reading in the papers. One thing about these areas down here is that the people who buy properties and holiday homes in these areas, or build them, buy blocks of land and build them, generally are cashed up. They are generally not affected by temporary downturns in the city area because they don't sit on a huge mortgage on a property in town and then go and extend themselves and do the same with a property down here. No. 1, they probably wouldn't get the finance, and No. 2, they would be pressuring themselves. Generally speaking, most properties I sell down here are to people who have little or no mortgage left on their properties in town, they have had a great escalation in the value of the property over the years that they were occupying in town, and so they are coming in very well cashed up. They might borrow the full amount to buy the property here, but generally speaking they have moved on, their kids have moved on, they have two incomes still, and because the values here are a lot less than in town in many cases, especially areas like ours. An average property price down our way is probably $90,000 for a block of land and $200,000 for a house, or maybe $210,000, so it's an affordable situation. It's not the effect of the general global economy and the state of people's nerves, it's purely the marine parks. I believe the buyers are out there still but they are all nervous and they won't make the move because they are afraid to buy a property that could devalue by 20 per cent or 30 per cent overnight, or in a short period of time, after they have bought it. So, it is certainly having a major effect. Sellers are also aware that buyers are scarce so they are accepting lower values, they are accepting offers that are lower than the properties are worth, and that will, in turn, force the values. I have also noticed, generally speaking, that the rateable values, the council valuations, coming out are getting closer, if not, in a lot of cases, in excess of the actual market values of the property and what they are selling for, which I have never seen before down here. I have just noticed it creeping closer and closer and closer. I sold a property in the front row at The Pines a few months ago, the council valuation was $219,000 and the sale price was $160,000. That is an extreme example and there were some other reasons why it was undervalued, asbestos being one of them, but this is the sort of thing that is happening and it's going to happen more and more. 929 The CHAIRPERSON: What would it be worth in the absence of the marine park proposals, in your view as an agent from that area? Mr WILSON: A $200,000 property, prior to marine parks, was going for about $225,000, so that's about the difference. To me, at this stage, it's roughly 10 per cent but it's going to increase, and I can see it creeping up and it's going to keep going up while this process keeps stalling and goes through. 930 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Mr Wilson, before you continue. Have you personally been a member of the land group? Have you been involved? Mr WILSON: No, I haven't, and I will tell you why, apart from the fact that I wasn't necessarily asked. I was aware of the fact that they were looking for people. My wife got a hold of me one night when I was talking to her about it and she said, 'If you go in and do this as a representative of our community, you'll eventually be seen to be a part of the problem and part of the process if it doesn't end up in a favourable manner.' I am sure Ian has probably copped that, I'm sure he's worried about that, and that was the main reason I decided not to, apart from the fact that I didn't want to take on too much. 931 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Where does the Pine area fall into?
Mr WILSON: Zone 12. It is basically very close to Corny Point, about 8 kms from Corny Point. I notice that there is no Corny Point representation here today, and I know that the Corny Point Progress Association didn't get notification of this hearing. I actually phoned them on Friday morning to let them know it was on and they did try to Dave Healey from the Howling Dog Tavern and Murray Williams, a professional fisherman, tried to get a berth for this hearing but they were refused. I then carried on like a pork chop and got a hearing.
Page 219
W. WILSON When I talk about the Pines, especially in percentage of fishing, I think all the Pines people and all the Corny Point guys fish in exactly the same locations. So, when I say 80 per cent of our areas would be taken away with the original proposal, that's exactly what the Corny Point guys say. 932 The CHAIRPERSON: As chair, I was not aware of that: that somebody tried to appear before us and wasn't able to. I presume there is a good reason for that, but they would be very welcomeI know it is not as convenient for them to appear before us in Adelaide, if they could. It is only a couple of hours down the road, and we would certainly welcome their evidence. Or they could certainly send in a written submission, and we would take that seriously, obviously. I apologise for that. It is not our intention to turn people away. Mr WILSON: The percentage of the population down that way, both at Corny and also the Pines and Couch Beach, is so heavily laden towards shackies that really their viewpoint is that, yes, they know there was a meeting scheduled at Burnside, and a lot of them went. But they really feel as if they haven't had the opportunity. It is sort of like the October long weekend, when I bought two pigs from Dublin and put on a roast dinner at our new community hall and served 200 meals. If I had done that on the weekend before or the weekend after that long weekend, I would have been lucky to serve 50 meals. It is the same situation with the meetings that have been down here, and that's why a lot of the shackies who live in Adelaide get so agitated and probably almost nasty, as they might have done at that Burnside meeting: because they feel they have been excluded. 933 The CHAIRPERSON: Would you please pass on to them that invitation. Do we have a submission from them that we are aware of? No. Well, they are certainly free to appear before us if they want to or send in a written submission. Mr WILSON: Okay. I will pass that on in the community minutes. 934 The CHAIRPERSON: Do you mind if we go to questions. We have only seven minutes left. I have parliamentary staff here, so we need to finish on time. Mr WILSON: I just want to say one more thing, which will not take long. My conversation was with Dave Pearce. We have always been friendly, and that is the way I have preferred it and I am sure that is the way he has preferred it. Basically, I am sure that David was very well intentioned with this, but there are two ways of looking at the revised zone situation. We were basically told, categorically, that no-go zones will happenthat's it. You either get involved in the process to reduce them or you run the risk of it going through unaltered or altered to the extent that we decide or that DENR decide. A lot of people take that as a threat, and perhaps it is. I take the view that, if it does go through, I would rather see the reduced zones that we redesigned and that community people said they might be more inclined to accept. I see it that way, but some people see it as a bully-boy tactic. That is all I wanted to get across. 935 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We appreciate that very much. Perhaps I can start with the first question. You mentioned a particular example of a house that sold for $160,000, I think you said, and, according to the council rates, it had a valuation of $217,000. Is that right? Mr WILSON: $219,000, yes. 936 The CHAIRPERSON: That's a very large disparity. Mr WILSON: It's huge. 937 The CHAIRPERSON: And you said that some of that was due to asbestos. I'm asking for your opinion as an agent, if you can. Give us an indication of how that breaks down, please. Mr WILSON: I use the example to make a dramatic point. It is probably not the best example, but the house was an old A-frame built by a German fellowHerman the German he was referred to, and he was the chappie behind the Nullabor Nymph debacle years ago. Herman was a character of the area, and that was his holiday home. He then bought a property alongside the Pines and built another house, so the house had not been lived in for probably 15 years, so was pretty rundown and it had an asbestos roof as well, and you can appreciate that A-frame's are not a terribly attractive retail situation at the best times. The shed on the property was also asbestos. So there were other reasons as well.
Page 220
W. WILSON 938 The CHAIRPERSON: Why would the council value it at 219 then? Mr WILSON: I've got no idea. When I saw it I was stunned. 939 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: It's probably land value.
Mr WILSON: That's probably right. Land value was probably around about 150, 155, in that area. 940 The CHAIRPERSON: But not 219? Mr WILSON: It was a front row property. 941 land? Mr WILSON: Yes. 942 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Just on that, Wayne, I was aware of one property where it was something like $30,000 to remove an asbestos house from an existing property. You just can't knock it down and dump it. Mr WILSON: There is nothing wrong with solid asbestos. You can drink the water that runs off the roof and that sort of stuff. They don't have rain water tanks coming of the roof, but in its true form it is okay. It is only when you start playing with it, drilling it, and trying to cut it, that you put yourself an obvious danger. There was so much asbestos in this place that if you went to remove it the cost would be incredibly high. I would have said more like $15,000, probably, to remove the asbestos there, and then you would be in a position to either want to re-roof it or pull it down. 943 The CHAIRPERSON: I have had a house demolished in Adelaide, which had some asbestos, and that was $11,000. Are there any other questions? Wayne, thank you very much for your evidence today. I am disappointed to hear that there were some people who to want to appear before us and could not. I am not saying where the blame lies; I don't think it is really the issue. The issue is that they are welcome to and, in fact, we would like them to, if they are serious. Please pass that on. We're here to listen today, and we want to hear from people who want to talk to us. Mr WILSON: Okay. Thank you. 944 The CHAIRPERSON: Can I say to the gallery, just in closing that we have come to hear today. I hope that you feel that you have been heard and listened to. That was very much the intention. I'm glad to see that there are lots of heads nodding; that's good. I assure you that the committee will give it due consideration. You have three political parties here todayLabor, Liberal and Family Firstbut we are not here as members of political parties; we are here to listen to what people really think. We are grateful for you taking your time to come to us today and give us your feelings and input into this situation. Thank you very much. The CHAIRPERSON: So minimal valuation for the actual improvement of the
Page 221

Transcript of Evidence - Maitland 25.10.11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcript of Evidence - Maitland 25.10.11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

BY AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

THE WITNESSES WITHDREW

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

THE WITNESS WITHDREW

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

THE WITNESS WITHDREW

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

THE WITNESS WITHDREW

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

THE WITNESSES WITHDREW

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

THE WITNESS WITHDREW

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

THE WITNESS WITHDREW

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

You might also like