transcript of evidence - maitland 25.10.11

8/13/2019 Transcript of Evidence - Maitland 25.10.11

1/47

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


2/47

SELECT COMMITTEE ON MARINE PARKS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA Page 176

MEMBERS:

Hon. D.G.E. Hood MLC (Chairperson)Hon. J.M. Gazzola MLC

Hon. J.M.A. Lensink MLCHon. 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 thecommittee 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 anyclerical 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 accordedall evidence presented to a select committee; however, witnesses should be aware that privilegedoes not extend to statements made outside of this meeting. All persons, including members of themedia, are reminded that the same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. There will bemedia 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 wentto Kangaroo Island recently and down to Wirrina Cove. We get all the tough jobs in this businessand it has been a real pleasure for us. We are off to Port Lincoln shortly, and up to the EyrePeninsula, 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 hada 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 otherrepresentatives that have been on different LAG groups. Simon Greenslade has been involved withregion 11, which is a very important one centred on Port Victoria and also on the Spencer Gulf sideof things. Peter Stockings is chair of one of the LAG groups as well, so he is very versed in whathas 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 withhim about the whole procedure because we feel that the LAG groups are the ones that have hadthe 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 veryconcerned about the potential economic impact it could have on our region when we've got 485 kmof coastline and there are four marine parks within our local government area. As you can see fromthe gallery that's here today, there's a great deal of concern about it, and there's been a lot of workthat has gone on in the background. I will hand over to Simon and also to Peter, who will do mostof the talking on our behalf.

Mr GREENSLADE: Firstly, thanks for the opportunity to appear before yourcommittee today. I will apologise in advance if I seem somewhat blunt but, like most farmers, I amcoming to the business end of the season for myself and I am lying in bed most nights wonderinghow 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 beforeyou, I have concerns about the size of the sanctuary zones within the marine parks, most


3/47

A. CAMERONR. AGNEW

S. GREENSLADEP. STOCKINGS


particularly the zone within Marine Park 11, which is the area I know best, having lived in theMaitland and Port Victoria district my entire life. I understand the political imperative that has driventhe marine park legislation; however, one of the premises upon which this act is based I findsomewhat amusing.

780 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Sorry, Simon, we should have cleared this up before. Isyour evidencethe statement you are givingon behalf of the council or as a member of thecommunity?

Mr GREENSLADE: As a member of the community, but I feel bound as acouncillor 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 givingevidence 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 thatare coming from the community that we represent. Therefore, what Simon is getting at is thefeedback 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 andmeet with the minister and DENR on a number of occasions. From a council perspectiveprobablyfrom our perspectivewe were excluded from the initial consultation process and where PeterStockings 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 furtheruntil such time as the no-take zones have been identified.

We understand that the community generally is concerned here about the size ofthe no-take zones that were put forward for consultation, bearing in mind that the minister was veryclear to us that the LAGs' efforts would be taken on board. But, again, we are yet to see the finaloutcome of that. So, it is very difficult for us to put a position forward until such time as we haveseen the final outcome for consultation which, on my understanding, is due for November-December, 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'twant to be overly pedantic; it is important for us to understand who is being represented heredon'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 itshouldn'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 ruralcommunities 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 departmentandI 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 nearly30 per cent of the area in marine park 11, and if you overlay sandpit maps on top of those it is a


4/47

A. CAMERONR. AGNEW



vast area where people come to fish, that it is not going to drive away the very people who comehere to fish.

I have safety concerns, if the area is closed off, that the people in boats that arenot suitable will be forced into deeper and less safe water. This is the reason that people come tothe area off Balgowan, Chinaman Wells and Port Victoria: they come to fish where there is shallowwater, where there is safe anchorage, and where they are able fish almost year-round, unlike insome of the parks at the bottom end where the natural weather creates a barrier for them to go outa lot of the time during the winter.

Like much of rural South Australia, the communities of Maitland and Port Victoriaand the small surrounding towns were hit particularly hard by the recession of the eighties and thenineties. However, to a large extent they have managed to reinvigorate and regenerate themselveson the back of tourism, more particularly recreational fishing. I am hoping that you have had theopportunity to read the submission of the marine park 11 people. I will not go into it because in part4 it gives examples of the socioeconomic impact on marine park 11.

I think it clearly demonstrates through graphs and surveys just what the impact willbe for people if they can't get that summer tourist trade. I fear they will not be able to sustain theirbusinesses in the long term and, therefore, those facilities will be lost to our communities. Earlierthis year, my local member, Steven Griffiths, was kind enough to hand a letter to Paul Caica. I mustsay I am immensely pleased that Mr Caica has retained his portfolio. He seems a straight shooterto me and a particularly honest man, and I take him at his word when he said that it is not hisintention 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 whohas come to Maitland to start an outboard marine business. I wrote of the fear in his eyes and thetrepidation in his voice when I asked him about his future prospects if the marine parks areestablished 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 onepart 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 theroom, and I have agonised for some time whether to raise this, ever since I knew your committeewas coming to the peninsula. However, I have formed the opinion that I must because it will bederelict of me not to do so and, perhaps more frighteningly, sooner or later it will be brought up in apublic forum in a more passionate and possibly less considered manner, which I believe would bean unmitigated disaster. It is my understanding that an Indigenous land use agreement will overridethe fishing ban within the sanctuary zones of marine park 11. Is that correct or, to the best of yourknowledge, your understanding?

788 The CHAIRPERSON: I am not aware of it, frankly. Do any other members of thecommittee 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 ourcommunity will be able to carry out its customary practices.

790 The CHAIRPERSON: Can I just say to the gallery, with respect, that as aparliamentary committee we have rules and procedures so I'm not allowed to take evidence fromthe gallery in an ad hoc manner. I appreciate very much, sir, your volunteering that; perhaps if wecan speak later. Sorry, please proceed.

Mr GREENSLADE: Thank you, Dennis. As I alluded to before, I'm a lifelongresident 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.


5/47


6/47

A. CAMERONR. AGNEW



34 per cent inside the outer boundary zones of some of those parks, the devastation would havebeen 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 veryanimated, and I can understand why, because that was what was presented earlier. It wasunfortunate that DENR came out with the maps and the way they presented it, because it really gotpeople 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 haveworked for RDA and also for the district council, so I have a fairly wide spectrum of travel. Peoplewill know that I travel a heck of a lot in the whole area. To take John's point, there is no definingcouncil thing but overall, in the meetings we have had with the minister, the message has been toreiterate that we needed those consultation periods to take place, to define the areas if theyneeded 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 consultationsand there will beother 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 theother things that needs to be put out is that the beach, even if it is in a no-go zone, is stillsomewhere a kid can go and chuck a line. In that respect that was paramount, also, that thoseareas which had a sanctuary zone adjacent to them were moved in such a way that it did notimpact on those small communities. In one particular instance, it was right in front of one particulararea.

I have some written evidence I would like to leave with you from the Port Moorowiegroup, because they were not able to speak today. I would like to leave that, if I could, just for thegroupI have some dot points for them. The economic impact has started and is trying to beassessed. It is an extremely difficult process. We presented some evidence to the minister inrelation to the impact, as best we could work out, from having sanctuary zones across those fourareas 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 notonly 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 thesea has a tremendous impact on the amount of recreational people who can get out, but we havequite an intense professional industry from the rock lobster and long liners, and they have craft thatcan get out and, therefore, they are impacted as well. So, whilst council may not, in a sense, havea 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 definedexactly where and what will come back from DENR. I think if it comes back and it is nothing likewhat 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 chairof one of those and been to a number of other meetingsto 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 wantthem at all.

Michelle has commented on the marine parks and the outer boundaries. I thoughtthey were something that had been decreed a long time agoabout seven or eight years agoand 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 bitlike me who thought that was something that was done with the professional industry, and theprofessional 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 haveconsulted as best we possibly can. The LAG groups, it was not an easy thing, and I do commendthe officers, particularly Davidand I know he's here today, but it's not just because he is here. Itwas 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


7/47

A. CAMERONR. AGNEW



taken back. Having said that, we have all moved on, and I think we need to wait until thedeliberations 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. Ithink the committee has heard that this is something about which there are strong feelings aroundthe 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 interms of getting an outcome that people are happy with. Can any of you please put your viewsforward 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 atall, for a start; we got it from the community. They have come to the council and said, 'Thesemarine parks here, what are you going to do about it?' We had been given no information aboutthem at all, so there wasn't that consultation. It wasn't until we actually decided that we would go

and visit the minister

which we were able to do, and that was very good

and that was the earlypart of our consultation.

As a local government body, we were not included in it at all until they were goingto have the LAG groups, etc. Then the LAG groups came to council and said, 'What are you goingto do about it? What's the council's position?' We didn't know; we had nothing to guide us on whatour position would be because we didn't know. There was no consultation with us. Andrew, wouldyou

Mr CAMERON: It's fair comment.

Mr GREENSLADE: I can't help but thinkand I know that it wasn't thedepartment's intentionthat, when the maps came out for these big sanctuary zones, naturallypeople gravitated to those, and they're going, 'Oh, they're going to take away so much in fish.' Theprocess 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, butat 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 give3.2 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 thatuncertainty is eating away at people.

797 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: To follow up on what we were discussing before aboutwhether the boundaries, etc., came through legislation, the act passed parliament in 2007, and atthat stage is was minister Gago who was environment minister. Jay Weatherill becameenvironment 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 areset, and we cannot change those outer boundaries unless both houses of parliament decide to dothat. 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 parliamentcould change the zoning, not the outer boundaries because that was all done and dusted, but theparliament 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.


8/47

A. CAMERONR. AGNEW



Mr STOCKINGS: Just adding to some things in relation to DENR is the fact thatwhat came up at many of these meetings was the scientific evidence that decided that. There aremany of us in this room, and those of us who were born and bred on the place, who realise thatthere are areasand you will hear this around the statethat are not being protected and thoseare some of the things that we wished to see protected. They don't fall within that outer boundaryarea 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 atone of the meetings with us. I can't remember whether it was with the council or was another one Iwas 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, itmay be something because there are some areas that have great significance to professionalfishermen and recreational fishermen and they are not in the protected area, where they have goneto 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 Petersaid, that that area should be protected. Why don't they give that area and protect that, thenperhaps 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 thatstrange, to be frank.

803 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: You have touched on the importance of fishing, but Ithink it would be really useful, just to get it on record as part of our evidence, if you could describeboth what stocks of fish are targeted by the commercial sector and also in terms of recreationalfishing. It is probably like a lot of regional South Australia, particularly where it is quite seasonalover summer. A lot of cockies would go to the beach and you might have people come frominterstate. 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 have42 per cent absentee property owners. They are the ones who have got holiday homes here andthey are the recreational fishermen who come over here. One member of your committee has beenwell 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 theright 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 partof peninsula they are coming from. So, they are coming over here to do their fishing. There are thespin-offs of the actual recreational fishing, with the bait supplies and everything that goes withfishing. So, there is the multiplying effect that will affect our community. That is why a lot of themcome over here. They come over here to go crabbing and they come over here to go fishing, if theyget feed of fish.

I think one of the things that hasn't really been taken into account is the conditionsthat are now put on there by Fisheries, like your bag limits and all of those sorts of things that are inthere. 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 fishis 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 WestCoast where people have gone in there and abused the system because they have gone outfishing in the morning, got their quota and gone back again in the afternoon, which you are allaware 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.


9/47

A. CAMERONR. AGNEW



Mr GREENSLADE: It is. These two gulfs are some of the most heavily regulatedfishing areas, I imagine, on the planet. The locals find it amusing that they are then having anotherimpost 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 economicfigures on the fisheries. I am quite happy to talk to you about the price of the superphosphate andthe poor price of grain, but it is just the general malaise that will come into our community if you cutoff so much of our fishing area.

806 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Mayor, you are talking about the consultative processand how council was not consulted. Marine parks are not exactly a new concept. Heading back to1999, I think they were first introduced by the former Liberal government, when Kero was theminister of the day. So, they have been around for 10 or 11 years, and indeed, your local memberis a former member of councilhe was the CEOso over all that time, did council ever think abouttaking 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 amarine park: what are the conditions on it? Nobody knew that anyway, and so there were noquestions at all about the marine park; what does it mean? That was really what it was, I wouldthink.

Mr GREENSLADE: John, can I say I only joined the council 11 months ago, and Ihave lived here all my life, and I had heard next to nothing about the marine parks until I came ontocouncil. So, I think what the Mayor is saying is right: people might have been aware that there wasa marine park, but until it started to directly impact upon them in the form of the no-take zones, thenthe 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 tosay, and clearly it is important that we do that. As John has just mentioned, marine parks do have ahistory, but the act was actually legislated in 2007, as you have also heard, so eventually it didneed 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 actiongroups consult and then take that back before we see a draft management plan come out, andthen see further consultation. I have heard from you that you did not think the first phase of theconsultation went well, but now I understand that you are quite happy with what has happenedsince then. Is that correct?

Mr STOCKINGS: I not would say that we were happy, Carmel, but I think that thefact thatI agree with you, and I understandthere are just two things I would like to clarify. Fromthe 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 beingdetermined. It was not up for recreational Toms, Dicks and Harrys to actually have an impact onthat. The only real chance for the ordinary recreational tourism typeand there may have beentalks with Tourism SA, or something at that stage, and I agree with youis we have got to moveforward 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 withthat. I think the issue to start with was probably, yes, a bull in a china shop, but everybody rousedup and we got a load of hotheads, and that is fair enough; people need to get their emotions out oftheir system and then come along. I can say that it did take a lotand I have chaired a lot of thingsin my lifeto actually get it to a point where we are with the consultation, and some of theconsultation has still not been agreed to.

Really, people still feel aggrievedyou will hear that today, and they are entitled todo that, and that's finebut it was the best we could do. It took quite a whileit took a year


10/47

A. CAMERONR. AGNEW



because that was back in March, and that whole year took a long time; that is fine, but when youare on the ground and you are dealing with it, and your phone is going every night and you hold itout here until people calm downthey are entitled to do that, but it was darn hard. I daresay, it wasno 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 havewhat the sanctuary zonelet's call them 'no-go zones', because that is what they really areonthe map. When they come out (which they will), then we certainly will be seeking good clarificationand 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 whatwe are here for.

Mr STOCKINGS: Thank you.

811 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: You mentioned earlierand I know your role; I havebeen coming here for many, many, many years, and it may be a question to you Andrewis 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 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: What about the current ones on the current maps asthey are?

Mr CAMERON: Again, John, it is very difficult, and this has been discussed withinthis group on a number of occasions when we have been requested to do that. It's a fairly bigimpost on a small regional council for us to undertake economic modelling to that extent, but thento what extent has the LAG process within DENRto 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 thesecheap houses and cheap boats that everyone keeps talking about. If there is some submission,whether it is from the Local Government Associationjust as we have to prove the science (andthere is argument over the science), and I appreciate witnesses coming along and saying this isgoing to have a devastating effect on house prices, that if they going to drop 2 per cent or5 per cent, why is that? As I said, marine parks have been around since 1999 and house values inall the areas have not exactly gone backwards.

Mr CAMERON: I have been here for 7 months, John. I came from the Barossaand Broken Hill, so not a lot of beach in those areas. For me, initially coming here and trying to getmy head around that, that was the first thing in my first week, and I heard a lot of feedback fromwithin the community and there was general concern. I related that to DENR, and DENR was quiteforceful coming back and saying, 'It won't have any economic impact at all on your council area.' Isit back and look and think that it's 485 kilometres of coast and around 4,000 kilometres of councilarea to coverand that is significantwith around 48 communities. So, from my perspective, intrying to guide council where there is a decision-making process, when we go out in the next stageof 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 ifDENR gave you a rationale for making that sort of statement which I, personally, findextraordinarydo you think that that's because they perceive that a large proportion of thepeninsula's income comes from grain and primary industries, and perhaps a bit from mining, ratherthan appreciating the seasonal tourism component of the peninsula's income, particularly for someof the small towns?

815 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: It's a bit hard to ask the CEO of a council what DENRwas thinking.

816 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: He can answer it however he likes, John. He mighthave had some rationale.


11/47

A. CAMERONR. AGNEW



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 thereanything particularly pressing? I think we understand your points.

Mr STOCKINGS: A couple of things regarding economics. We have a very goodunderstanding of the economic wealth of Yorke Peninsula from a tourism perspective, from a grainperspective and from a fishing industry perspective and to a degree, with mining. I don't have thosefigures in my head. I've done them with this group, and I worked them out as best as I could if thesanctuary zones came in, and I will clarify this too, John: the issue about the marine parks onlyreally hit when the sanctuary zones came innot before. There wouldn't' be anybody here, otherthan the professional fishing operators, who would know anything about the marine park outerboundary. Nothing else, with due respect, has happened until that came in. Nobody else knewanything about it until we were faced suddenly with, 'These are the sanctuary zones, and thosezones are coming in there'.

To try to give the economic side of things, yes, we know what that's going to do, sowe 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 thefour zonesthis is looking at council perspective all-upand looked at those and took a rationaleas best as we could. I spoke to Andrew about it one day, and it was damned hard to do this, and Iagree with John. Have the marine parks made any impact? No, of course the marine parks haven'tmade any impact until the perception of the no-go zones. That's when people started to feel thatthat 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 committeewould 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 nextstage, I

820 The CHAIRPERSON: Sorry to interrupt but I think the very clear message you aremaking to the committee, and correct me if I am wrong, is that although it is hard to quantify (andobviously 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 wrongbecause 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 oftheir understanding and resources, is what the group at Marine Park 11 has put together: what willbe 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 ifthe next phase comes out in December-January, particularly in December which is a particularlybusy time for our community, it is not going to be a great look for DENR. It is going to look like theyare trying to slide it in the back door when everyone is flat out.

822 The CHAIRPERSON: The committee has had that feedback before, I canreassure 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 thepeople who have come before us and organisations that have come before us, support marineparks. Are you prepared as a council to put your position on marine parks in January?

824 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Per se.

825 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: They all start with, 'We support marine parks but

'


12/47

A. CAMERONR. AGNEW



Mr CAMERON: Well, I think that is about right. Without speaking on behalf of thecouncil, I would have to be fairly clear that they are very supportive of marine parks per se andsanctuary zones as long as it is sustainable and economically sustainable. I think that would be afair comment.

826 The CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, thank you. We appreciate sincerely yourevidence today and I assure you it will be duly consideredgenuinely considered is the point I amtrying to make.

THE WITNESSES WITHDREW


13/47


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. Weare very grateful. The Legislative Council has given the authority for this committee to hold publicmeetings. A transcript of your evidence today will be forwarded to you for your examination for anyclerical 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 accordedall evidence presented to a select committee; however, witnesses should be aware that privilegedoes not extend to statements made outside of this meeting. All persons, including members of themedia, are reminded that the same rules apply as in the reporting of parliament. We have receivedyour submission and we thank you for it. Please proceed.

Mr WINTON: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to add to thesubmission of the Lower Yorke Peninsula Community Action Groupand I will refer to them as theCAGhere today. At the outset, and as a statement of principle, the CAG supports theestablishment of properly designed and managed sanctuary zones within marine parks, but wesimply ask that sanctuary zones are established with full engagement of the community and thatthey have clear, measurable objectives and biodiversity conservation outcomes that cannot be metvia 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 Decemberlast year. I personally convened the meeting after being alerted to the government's discussionpaper and, doing some research, I contacted the three LAG chairmen on the Yorke Peninsula. Ispoke with the South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council, I made contact with thedepartment, and I researched their website. The more material that I gathered, the more concernedI became about the process. So, the meeting was publicised in Edithburgh by placing about100 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 were300 people inside the hall and I am told that there were 100 people who couldn't get in the hall andwere hanging outside the doors. It reminded me a little bit of Burnside. I was equally surprised bythe level of anger in the hall. I had not come prepared for 300 people. But I was impressed by therowdy opposition to the discussion on sanctuary zones, and there was unanimous support in thehall to develop and fund a smaller action group.

As a result, a group of 25 to 30 people met regularly, including business owners, aperson with significant prior experience in the Department for the Environment, a fisher, a long-timefisher in the area who voluntarily provides catch information to assist the government research ongarfish. There were two divers who had over 40 years' experience in diving across the state, andone of those have been employed by the Department of Marine and Harbours. We had a retiredsenator 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 sixministers' offices of both Labor and Liberal persuasion and have had significant exposure in theenvironment and fisheries portfolios. I have had long-term experience in prisons, mainly from theoutside, and, as a senior officer and latterly as a human resource consultant to the Department ofTransport and then in environment and fisheries.

I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the action group has a wealth ofexperience 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 ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, going back to my old experience.

These community members are not, in my submission, a gathering oftroublemakers, and I was very disappointed that Mr Allan Holmes, the Chief Executive of the


14/47

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 expertcontributors. 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 fishersand 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 withMr David Pearce of the department to contribute. I should point out that in the correspondence thatyou will find in our submission to you we have been at pains to acknowledge the considerableeffort, patience and fortitude of Mr Pearce. It is not that he just a very tall man; he is a very patientman. So none of what I say is criticism of him, but the same cannot be said for his departmentalleaders and the strategy developers, particularly Mr Chris Thomas, the program director. I willallude 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 forprobably 25-odd years. I had the benefit of some useful coaches, and they said, 'Bluey, you shouldnever play the man; always play the ball.' I have done that throughout my life, but today I'm goingto 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 individualmembers of the LAG to understand the need for these significant areas that have been proposed tobe closed for conservation purposes. Our action group is not convinced that there is any scientificevidence particularly relevant to Marine Park 13. The main rationale for proposing closure ofconservatively more than 30 per cent of the total area, as outlined in the discussion paper, wasbased on a loosely defined precautionary principle, but it was always mainly about politicalimperatives, 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 thepiece when DENR staff invited me and several other members of the Edithburgh community tosimply draw up our sanctuary zones, and they would be reasonably considered. In fact, the finalproposal 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 DENRseemed comfortable that it would meet most of the criteria.

The myriad of scientific and other publications that I have read suggest thatsuccessful designer sanctuary zones require community buy-in, and efforts to convince DENR thatthis is a key component success and, therefore, to allow a reasonable time and resources foreffective consultation has not been successful. DENR have not adequately consulted with thecommunity on the issue, and the community has no confidence in its ability to design or implementa community engagement strategy. Until the department was faced with a backlash at the Burnsidemeeting it had no plans to have information sessions in the metropolitan area. In fact, at a meetingwith 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 beheld at Edithburgh. It is my submission to you that DENR has failed to communicate its strategicintent 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 havecommunity support or provide any objectives on which the success of the initiative can bemeasured.

I have been at pains to record in the submission that I have sent to you thecompletely unsatisfactory meeting with Mrs Thomas, the program manager. I ask you to takeparticular note of the report to the LAG, dated 9 May 2011, which is Appendix 9. It is entitled, 'Acommunity under duress'. It is my humble opinion that the strategy developed by the programdirector lacks any semblance of understanding of the need for real community engagement. Theevidence to you, the select committee, given by the chief executive of DENR and the programmanager builds on our cynicism that when the government proposals are announced later this yearthe process will not include any real community consultation.

I do not see that a roadshow of information sessions with a time line of a fewmonths is a realistic effort to effectively engage the community on an issue of such public


15/47

I. WINTON


importance or concern. We have no confidence that DENR will properly consider the social andeconomic impacts of the proposal, on the Yorke Peninsula in particular. Since I made mysubmission to the select committee, I have had an experience that builds on my concern as to theperceptions of DENR in relation to consultation and is particularly relevant in the context ofrealistically 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 thenetwork of contacts that the CAG would need across the state, in February this year (amongstother things) I joined the South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council. I have beeninstalled as Deputy Chair of that council, which surprises me somewhat, having joined just inFebruary, but that is the matter.

As the SARFAC representative I attended a meeting with EconSearch on Monday26 September as part of the consultation on the impact of sanctuary zones. This meeting reinforcesmy view that the whole process is being rushed. It is lazy public policy, and DENR simply does notunderstand the need or the value of true stakeholder consultation. The invitation to attend themeeting, and the meeting, gave me no confidence that the government has listened to the ongoingprotests of recreational anglers across the state by adjusting its community engagement process. Iwould 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 wasin normal business hours, which effectively prevented a reasonable cross-section of thatorganisation's mostly volunteer resources being able to attend. EconSearch advised me at themeeting that they were required to report to the government by Thursday 6 October (about 10 dayslater). Therefore, in my assessment, it was in the final stages of preparing its report. I was given noadvance notice of the details to be discussed, nor was I afforded any opportunity to consult with theSARFAC membership, despite this government initiative being the largest threat in living memoryto recreational anglers.

At the meeting, EconSearch was unable to provide any definitive indication of thegovernment's final proposals, and I found it impossible to provide any reasonable contribution tosuch an important initiative without access to more detailed information. Nor could I understandand 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 inthe state (with light pencil-marks put on the maps) which EconSearch told me might form thegovernment's final proposals for sanctuary zones.

Over a period of two hours I was asked to provide comment on the social andeconomic impact of more than 140 sanctuary zones across the state. This process can only bedescribed as farcical and a shameful attempt at consultation, and I made those very comments atthe 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 tickthe box that SARFAC had been consulted. I firmly rejected at that meeting, as I do now, anyassertion that SARFAC has been consulted on such a critical issue. But let me be clear that, as Ihave 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 theresearchers 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 seemsto continue to ignore the concerns of the general recreational fishers or their rights in relation toeffective community engagement and consultation. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that thegovernment continues to place recreational fishers in an adversarial position and at odds with alaudable conservation initiative. In summary, it is my submission that the most significant flaws inthe DENR strategy are to use the information gained from recreational anglers provided in goodfaith as one of the tools to design sanctuary zones. I believe their really critical mistake was todevelop draft discussion sanctuary zones without involving the LAGs or the community.

To table these documents that they have prepared at the LAG meeting without anyresources 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 moredisgraceful, as Mr Thomas stated at my meeting with him, that this type of reaction was expected; it


16/47

I. WINTON


was normal. This one act by DENR put the members of the LAG in a particularly poor position inany future dealings with the general community and, in my opinion, it threatened their very standingin the community.

Another flaw is that DENR does not acknowledge the significant damage theprocess 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 valueof community buy-in to the establishment and management of these sanctuary zones. DENR hasnot enabled the consultants assessing the impact of over 140 sanctuary zones with sufficient timeor direction to facilitate the process. It remains our view that DENR processes are flawed. Itremains our view that the strategy for the development of sanctuary zones has been poorlyconceived and poorly led.

We believe that to facilitate the best outcomes for the development of sanctuaryzones which can be objectively measured for performance it is essential that a moratorium shouldbe instituted to enable the government to review the leadership of the program and to moreeffectively 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 looselydefined 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 CAGand it is myview 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. Bypoor organisation and the lack of resources, it has been unable to achieve effective representationon this particularly important issue. In my humble opinion, a recreational fishing licence, managedin partnership by a trust which should include government representation and input, is highlydesirable.

Whilst I understand that, at this point in South Australian politics, a recreationalfishing licence might be seen as poison, I think it is an important strategy to pursue. Theexperiences 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 areinterested.

828 The CHAIRPERSON: Would you mind if I stop you there, unless there issomething else pressing? I really want to get in some questions, and we are running very close totime. 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 thechairperson of the Stansbury Progress Association send me an email that states their position inrelation 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 makesure that there is enough time for the committee to ask questions. Thank you very much for yourevidence; you focused a lot on the consultation, which is normally my first question so I don't needto ask that question this time. However, I would like to ask about something you didn't touch onvery much; that is, your perception of the impact of what is being proposed. If it were put in placeas 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 theprocess since December last year. With the people I have regular exposure toand I am just aproperty owner at Edithburgh; I come from Adelaide most of the timeevery time I walk into thedeli, 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 wouldprobably lose the pub in Edithburgh. I have no doubt that if the sanctuary zone in front of PortMoorowie was implemented that the value of those properties, they would lose 10 per cent, 20 percent off the top. I don't have any expertise to say that, but that sanctuary zone in front of PortMoorowie is just madness. And the area in front of Sultana Point, you only have to go there on anygiven daythere might, over Easter, be over 200 boatsand there'll be 100 boats fishing in thatarea. They're not ripping fish out of the ocean; they're lucky to get a feed.


17/47

I. WINTON


I believe that we'd lose the pub and I believe the caravan park, particularly, inEdithburgh and Coobowie would be impacted, and people from Stansbury would start complainingbecause 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 adocument 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 workout who was who in environment, and who was driving this

831 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 invitedto

832 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This year?

Mr WINTON: Yes. I was invited to design some no-take zones.

833 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: So that was after the draft sanctuary zones had beenpublished.

Mr WINTON: Yes.

834 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Was that a process that was separate to the LAGprocess then?

Mr WINTON: Yes. There were public meetings that were popping up everywhereand there were regular invitations to people, 'Well, design your own; let's have a look at what you'dlike to have as a no-take zone.' I just believe that's madness. Not in my backyard; that's whatpeople 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 PortMoorowie and let the community understand what it is about and what it is trying to protect, andhow it is going to be managed. Then you will get people who want to participate in that. These aregood people who own these places down here and they want to participate; they just believe it'sbully 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 theconsultative 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 least10 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 theactual marine parks haven't.

840 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: The Howard government and all the governments weresigning up to it, so it is not a new concept or anything like that. At some stage, the government ofthe day, whether it was Labor or Liberal, would have had to make a decision to facilitate theconsultative process. Do you agree with that?

Mr WINTON: Yes.

841 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Okay. So, they have released maps. DENR hasreleased 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


18/47

I. WINTON


Mr WINTON: Thank you, John.

842 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: bringing people up to speed. Do you think we are stillin the consultative phase now?

Mr WINTON: Yes.

843 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: So, what is the problem with remaining in a consultativephase?

Mr WINTON: As I put to the minister when I met with him, along with the otherthree LAG chairmen, there is a difference between consultation and community engagement. Idon't believe that the next phase that DENR is going to implement is going to be about communityengagement. I believe, and the evidence that has been put to the select committee is that there aregoing to be some roadshows. Now, what DENR has generated in the community is a whole lot ofanger and angst and they are going to have to turn that around.

844 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Just DENR?

Mr WINTON: I believe that there would have been a level of angst anyway. I reallydo 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 anywherethat affects people's perceived rights about where they are going to fish is going to developanxieties.

846 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: So, it is pretty easy to whip up a bit of fear andscaremongering?

There being a disturbance.

847 The CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I have to ask the gallery to be quiet, please. Thankyou.

848 The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: That's alright. I asked the question.

849 The CHAIRPERSON: You have asked the question but I would say

850 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: It's more of a statement, I think.

851 The CHAIRPERSON: Mr Winton, I think we are very clear about your position. Itseems that a lot of us share that position, but can I say to the Hon. Mr Gazzola: if you have aquestion, 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 upa bit of fear and scaremongering?

Mr WINTON: Well, I guess it is, John. If you had the opportunity to be at the publicmeeting that I arranged, and if you look at my history, through my work background or such, I havenever 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 feelstrongly that DENR has not devised the strategy effectively.

Whilst there were what have been described to me as some rednecks at themeeting that we had in Edithburgh, in the main, I would say there were 290 very good citizensthere. 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 questionsfrom the committee?

855 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Perhaps mine will be comments as well. I was justgoing 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. Iwould have thought that was a good thing, but you are saying you don't agree with that?


19/47

I. WINTON


Mr WINTON: Not at all, Carmel. The LAG process was a very good process. Iwould 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 youreckon?' they would have got some feedback like, 'Don't do that! We are going to get lynched outthere.' But they did not do that; they came into the meeting and said, 'There it is. Now, you go outand consult with the community.' They didn't give them any resources to be able to do that, andthat is just wrong. It set these people up to fail.

858 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: That is most probably the first time we have actuallyheard the structurethe process, if you likeso it is interesting to hear those comments. You areall saying you agree with your local environmental fisheries officers, but you are saying you don'tagree 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 withthem, the likes of David Pearcewhat an impossible task he has, and how well he has done it. Iapplaud him; he has been brilliant.

859 The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: And yet, he is a DENR officer, acting on behalf ofDENR.

Mr WINTON: Absolutely. I don't want set David up in terms of his career path, but Ihave sat in meetings and seen the shade of grey that this man goes, and I have seen him noddingin appreciation of some of the positions that I have put to his leaders, but I believe he has been ona short lead, and he hasn't been given the freedom to actually get out there and work with thecommunity.

860 The CHAIRPERSON: Mr Winton, I am terribly sorry to do this, and we are here tolisten, but we are way over time and I will need to leave it there. Can I just say for the record that Icertainly don't regard the people of those meetings as rednecks or anything like it, and it's terriblyunfortunate that such language is used about these decent people. Thank you very much for yourevidence.

Mr WINTON: Thank you for listening.

THE WITNESS WITHDREW


20/47


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 bein 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 onthis issue, believe me, and we absolutely respect that and that is why we are genuinely here tolisten. 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 itmore difficult for them to record specific words that are spoken if there is background noise, and itis an orderly way to operate. It gives everyone a fair go. Just for your interest, as well for thegallery, the committee in its deliberations, agreed to hear from Steve Griffiths, MP, who is yourlocal member, of course. He has made a request this morning to be heard and we have agreed tohear 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 thecommittee for formality's sake, if I may: the Hon. Carmel Zollo; the Hon. John Gazzola; my name isDennis Hood; the Hon. Michelle Lensink; and the Hon. Terry Stephens is an apology today. I needto read a formal statement before I ask you to commence.

Welcome to the meeting. The Legislative Council has given the authority for thiscommittee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence today will be forwarded to you foryour examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at any time to present confidentialevidence 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 witnessesshould 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 thereporting of parliament.

Mr Bourke, we have allocated a maximum of 30 minutes for your presentationincluding 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 theLabor Party, but as I am full of confessions I will tell you that I voted for the Greens in the lastfederal election and for a long time I was a member of Greenpeace. I am in favour of marinesanctuaries, butand, yes, the 'but' is obvious. That 3.2 per cent that has been offered, to me, Iwill go to gaol to defend it. That is how it has been. There was time for negotiation. Unfortunatelythat 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 TownHall, and that is when they presented the sanctuary zones. Ian Janzow was the chairman; he wasthere. I am sure Ian will possibly confirm thisI am speaking on his behalf. The members of theactual LAG committee had never sighted those sanctuary zones until that point when it came up onthe screen on that day. This is why I am saying how peculiar the process was for the communityconsultation.

I believe those boundaries had been drawn up long before the firstMPLAG meeting. But again, like Ian before me, I totally endorse everything Ian said about ChrisThomas and certainly about Dave Pearce. Dave has my utmost regard, and I cannot speak highlyenough of him. While we are praising up people, I want to praise Steve Griffiths because he hastried to hold a bipartisan approach. He definitely has, and I have had some meetings with PaulCaica, and I know that Paul speaks very highly of him. I am really pleased about the bipartisanapproach that Steve has maintained. They are the compliments out of the way, I suppose.


21/47

P. BOURKE


Going back to the Marine Park 11 process, at that town hall, after going to thatand the fishing inspector and myself was there and the only other person in the room at themoment I am pretty sure was Ian. Incidentally, Ian, in the latter stage has represented Marine Park11 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 theprogress and I approached Wendy who is going to speak later on. I said, 'We've got to getsomething going here. I am going to get an action group. I just cannot believe that the consultationprocess is so faulty.'

So, I was the original instigator of the Port Victoria Action Group which morphedlater on into the Marine Park 11 Action Group. People are going to talk after me, so I will not go intothat area. What I want to talk about, if I can, is outside the terms of reference. At that particularmeeting, 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 committeewould 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 anyfinal agreement under the Indigenous Land Use Agreement has resolved. I have messages fromGrace 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 thecorrespondence. There is about three or four pages of it. In the end, it turns out that the Indigenouspeople 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 themarket. I thought, 'That's a bit unusual.' This hasn't been spelt out but I think it is probably anopportunity 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 lookedat my submission, and I am not going to go over my submission, I am trying to go into areas thathaven't been covered. I've sailed around Australia with my wife for four or five years. I was actuallyat Queensland when marine parks were being discussed. I was actually at Port Douglas. I attendedthe meeting there and the majority of people there were in favour of marine parks. There was thediving industry, the tourist industry and what have you.

I wandered around and then a bit later on I ended up at Geraldton. I worked veryclose to Jurien Bay, which here is their latest spiel here on Jurien Bay. I actually worked at twomines there, very close. Most of the people at Jurien Bay commute, they fly in and fly out. In fact, atthe last mine that I worked at, which was Niwest Res. at Cataby, which is virtually directly mid-waybetween Geraldton and Perth, I wasthis is a bit of an asideoffered a permanent job there, atthe 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 YorkePeninsula. 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'tprepared to work for $2,000 for four days work. I don't know anybody on the Yorke Peninsula whowould 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 comparisonwith house prices. Most of the people who work there are fly in/fly out tradesmen; they have plentyof money. As you may be aware, the coastline of Western Australia, in, say, a 200-kilometre radiuswe have about two and a half times the coastline that they have around Perth. So, obviouslythere's a concentration of real estate. So, how they can make a comparison with that?


22/47

P. BOURKE


Then, there is a perpetual story about these whales. I'm going nuts on thesewhales. Having sailed along the coast there, during the night, a couple of times, I was sprayed withwater. They are sort of everywhere. I have seen two pilot whales and I think I've seen a southernright in 27 years of sailing around this gulf. There is some statement alluding to the economicalbenefits through eco tourism. Well, I can't see it on the Yorke Peninsula anyway, particularlyMarine 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, ColinThyer, 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 believe19 were killed. What the cats do is get the penguins by the throat, rip open their gullets and takethe fish out. Wardang was just covered in dead penguins. That was the Aboriginal Lands Trust, butGoose Island is under DENR. The terns were being decimated, too; this time last year it wouldhave been. So, if the terns nest about now, it must have been December. I mentioned this earlier inone 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 topolice it? I know our local coastal patrol was sort of unofficially asked if they would be prepared topolice the marine parks, but they absolutely refused. I then made the remark that the only otheroption was the Country Women's Associationgrandmas on jetskis wielding rolling pins bangingus 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 straightshooter and, as you know, his vocabulary of swear words possibly exceeds even my own. After awhile, we were having a pretty good yarn. I asked him how they were going to police this. It wasgoing to be community ownership. That's good and nice, but there are not going to be too manytakers at Port Victoria going and dobbing in their mates. That's the thing: how are they going tocontrol it, anyway? I point that out. What else have I got to say? I have lots of other things I want torattle on about.

865 The CHAIRPERSON: Could I suggest, if you are in agreement, that you haveanother couple of minutes and then we go to questions.

Mr BOURKE: Yes, sure. I could go on about all the other things, about properprocess, but that's going to be covered by other people. I am just trying to go a little bit outside thesquare.

866 The CHAIRPERSON: Sure. If you can get to the really significant things that youwant 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 doubtover it. The only other thing is that I am rather relieved that Paul Caica is still the environmentalminister. That's probably it. I don't know if you have read my submission, but that says it all, if youare interested. That's about it.

867 The CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We appreciate that and your frankviews. A couple of questions from me and then I will hand over to the committee. You havetouched in general terms on the consultation process, and that is one of our specific terms ofreference. Can you give me specifics, in your view, of what was either good or bad? I don't want toput words in your mouth.

Mr BOURKE: Okay. I went to the first unofficial meeting which was down at PointTurton. The hall was chock-a-block full. A couple of peoplea chap is here now, QuentinMacDonald, behind metried to speak about Chinaman Wells, which was an absolute farce; thatarea where they said, 'We're going to avoid put the marine sanctuaries around that area.' Someother 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 asIan Wintonwe were talked down to, not necessarily by Dave, but he had to hold hisyou know,

he is the messenger. There was no direct input. You were told what they were going to do.


23/47

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 asan observer. It wasn't so much what was said at the meeting but what was said over the radio. Iknow Paul Caicaobviously what he said is confidential, but he made it very clear to me that someof the information was being not misrepresented but twisted between the process where David hadgiven 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 whatChris 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 consultationnot the meetingconsultationgreat, no complaints at all. It was fine, no problems with that. But on the big stageand 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 atmeetings and so forth. From your view, can you explain where that came from?

Mr BOURKE: Observation. The greatest one of all was certainly down atEdithburgh 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 toldmisrepresentation. Peter had to close the meeting and go into camera. It's a while back, but peoplewere getting very, very angry. I think there may have been a subtle police presence there; I'm nottoo sure about that. It was just that we had been denied the process of consultation. That was itthis was imposed on us.

874 The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Do you think people were stirred up, so to speak, byeither their local member or by the CAG?

Mr BOURKE: I would really like to think that Steve Griffiths stirred us up. No, theywere definitely not stirred up by Steve. Steve has held a beautiful middle ground, okay? What wasthe 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 wasfor sure to stir the community up, and I'm very proud of that, okay? But I would like to still think, as Isaid, that I am very much pro-conservationI really am. My reason for getting involved was theinequity of the whole system, not because I wanted to have some bee in my bonnet about themarine parks in particular. In fact, to be perfectly honest, it's not my biggest worry at all. It was justpurely the inequity, the process. It's hard to be specific, but there was no true communityconsultation 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 haveheard a lot of people express is their disappointment in the process of consultation. You haveadded to that. We are here to listen. Like everybody else, I certainly appreciate that the draftmanagement plan is not ready yet, and you will have a further opportunity to be consulted at thattime.

877 The CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions from the committee? Do you haveanything you would like to say in closing?


24/47

P. BOURKE


Mr BOURKE: No, I have covered it all. As I said, I can rattle on about everythingthat is going to be covered. I have just tried to say a little bit about that. Thank you all very much forindulging 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.

THE WITNESS WITHDREW


25/47


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 somebodyyou probably know well, Steven Griffiths, your local MP, member for Goyder. Steven approachedme a little while ago and the committee has agreed to hear his evidence, so we have no idea whathe is about to saythat's always dangerous. Steven, you said you only wanted a couple ofminutes.

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 hasgiven the authority for this committee to hold public meetings. A transcript of your evidence todaywill be forwarded to you for your examination for any clerical corrections. Should you wish at anytime 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 selectcommittee. However, witnesses should be aware that privilege does not extend to statementsmade outside this meeting. I have no doubt you are fully aware of that. All persons, includingmembers 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 toallow me to speak briefly. I just want to set the scene. I have lived on the Yorke Peninsula from theage of four until I was 32, and then again from 38 until now, 49. I have lived at Yorketown andfished south of Yorketown, from Edithburgh, Sultana Point, Marion Bay and Port Moorowie. Sinceliving in Maitland for the last 11 years, I have fished on both sides of the gulf. I am not very good atit, 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 last50 years probably on recreational fishing opportunities. Agriculture will always be the main focusand other industries are expanding, too. From my observation, having worked in the public spheresince the age of 16, in local government and now in parliament, people will come to YorkePeninsula first for a fishing opportunity, then maybe it's camping and fishing, then

transcript of evidence - maitland 25.10.11

Documents