Parliamentary Speeches
Marine Parks Amendment Bill 2007 ( 03/03/2008)
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina) [5.19 p.m.]: Let me state at the outset that I support marine parks in general terms. It is important that their creation and the zonings within their boundaries are based on sound science. I believe also that it is important to provide for the future conservation of marine life, but this must be achieved without excluding the use of marine parks by certain human activity which has no adverse impact on the conservation of marine life and biodiversity. I had much to do during the creation of the Cape Byron Marine Park, which stretches from Brunswick Heads in the north down past Byron Bay and Cape Byron to Lennox Head further to the south. Whilst the creation of the Cape Byron Marine Park, for example, generally is supported by the community I represent, considerable concern was expressed about the consultation process prior to and after its gazettal.
The exclusion of recreational fishers from certain fishing areas is a matter of considerable concern. Generally, the complaint was that fishers can fish in areas where there are no fish, but cannot fish in areas where there are fish. I acknowledge the work undertaken by Ken Thurlow, spokesperson for ECOfishers, which represents a large number of recreational fishers along the New South Wales coast. I applaud his scientific approach to the needs of recreational fishers and marine parks over the years. Community members, particularly those who walk their dogs on the beach, have expressed concern also that they have suffered considerable restrictions. I wonder sometimes whether those sorts of restrictions really are influential about the protection of marine life—however, I raise that as a concern of some people.
I support the Opposition amendments because I believe they will improve the legislation and make the creation of marine parks and what happens within them less controversial, particularly with recreational fishers. One major weakness of the bill is that a marine park can be, and is, gazetted prior to any public consultation taking place; that is, the boundaries of the park are gazetted and then the consultation process commences as to what happens in the park. It is important that prior to gazettal the public has a say about where those boundaries should be. This was Coalition policy at the last election and is very good policy. It is only fair that the community in a liberal democracy that puts some value on the consultation process should have a say about the location of marine park boundaries.
It is quite wrong that the Minister has the power to gazette marine park boundaries without any public consultation and then afterwards talk about what happens within that park. Marine park boundaries are important for the community, which has a right to say where those boundaries should be situated. The Minister approves also the operational and zoning plans of marine parks. At present the Minister is not required to take into consideration community submissions before approving those plans: this is fundamentally wrong. The Minister should be required to consider these submissions prior to making decisions that affect what can and cannot happen within the park. One assumes the Minister would take those submissions into consideration, however, the bill contains no requirement for the Minister to do so. Many people believe the Minister did not take community submissions into consideration in the creation of Cape Byron Marine Park.
My attention was drawn more recently to the issuing of permits for tour operators in marine parks. It is accepted that tour operators do not damage marine conservation and biodiversity, but the Marine Park Authority seems hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for them. The permits now have conditions that are difficult to accept and are issued for only a 12-month period after which the tourist operator must reapply for a new permit. This process imposes a lot of bureaucracy; I cannot see why a permit could not be issued for a period of three to five years, for example.
Finally, I welcome the clarification that sand dredging for beach nourishment within a marine park does not constitute mining. This was an issue in the Cape Byron Marine Park when beach nourishment at Byron Bay using accumulated sand off the Cape was not permitted in the past because it was considered to be mining, which, of course, is not allowed in a marine park. The former Chairman of the Coastal Council of New South Wales recommended beach nourishment as an appropriate process to reduce the erosion level in Byron Bay. Notwithstanding the eminent recommendation of Professor Bruce Thom, it was not brought into effect because under the Marine Parks Act sand nourishment was deemed an act of mining and therefore was not able to be implemented—yet, it was the softest environmental proposal proposed by no less than the former Chairman of the Coastal Council of New South Wales.
I welcome that amendment because clarification is required. In many cases beach management is an appropriate form of erosion prevention. We see it happening in the Tweed with sand bypasses. Clearly, it is wrong to regard beach nourishment as mining and not permitted in a marine park. In conclusion, I support the Opposition amendments and again make the observation that community consultation is needed prior to gazettal of the boundaries of marine parks, and that it should be compulsory for the Minister to take into consideration submissions received during the consultation process.
