 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney- General, representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Resources, a question about sustainable aquaculture.
Leave granted.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: As I mentioned in a question yesterday, last week the Environment, Resources and Development Court finally settled a case which had been running for more than a year between the Conservation Council of SA and the Tuna Boat Owners Association. The case concerned whether or not tuna feedlots could be licensed in such a way as to be ecologically sustainable. After three hearings in 12 months, including a Supreme Court appeal, the final judgment was that under current legislation they could not.
The minister was interviewed in the media about this and, as I alluded briefly yesterday, he attacked the conservation council, including (not specifically by name but because of unavoidable implication) its principal aquaculture researcher, Mr Peter Marchant, whom the minister himself appointed to a community reference group to examine proposals for a new aquaculture act. Mr Marchant has attended five meetings this year as a member of the community reference group. Each of these occasions required him to take a day off work without pay and drive long distances from his residence in Loxton. He believes that he has `been an active and useful member of the group' particularly in his `knowledge of the legal issues involved'.
However, according to the minister, the conservation council (and by inference, of course, Mr Marchant through his involvement with the court cases) had taken advantage of outdated legislation and technicalities, and should not be happy with their win in court. The minister said that Mr Marchant had a `complete disdain for rural jobs' and operated with double standards. Mr Marchant responded in the media by pointing out that the definition of `ecologically sustainable development', which the courts are using, was, in fact, provided by the South Australian government itself.
The precautionary principle applied by the courts is accepted (even by this government) as part of the definition of `ecologically sustainable development'. The precautionary principle means that, if you do not know the consequences of what you are doing to the environment, you should not do it. However, at the urging of the Conservation Council the courts have taken it to mean something more modest and even restrained. It was applied to mean, in effect, that, if we do not know the environmental consequences of tuna feedlotting (and we do not), then you must licence tuna feedlotting in only a monitored adaptive way, that is, in such a way that the licences can be amended from time to time to take into account emerging scientific information.
South Australian laws, which the minister himself has presided over and which have been unchanged in this respect for the past five years or more, do not permit these monitored adaptive type of licences to be issued for marine aquaculture. The government has directly and specifically excluded marine aquaculture from being subject to monitored adaptive licences. The ERD court has twice stated that, if aquaculture had been subject to monitored adaptive management, the court case would have been decided differently.
Since the conservation council's original win in the courts in December 1999, the minister has become a convert to the cause of monitored adaptive management. However, this did not stop him from making what can only be construed as a personal attack on someone who has been campaigning honestly, diligently and at a personal cost to have precisely this sort of management regime introduced to Australia. Mr Marchant sent an email to the minister in which he says, in part:
In May you wrote to me to invite me to be part of a community reference group to provide independent advice to you on legislative options and policy for aquaculture. I assume that you made this invitation in full knowledge, and perhaps because, I had been involved in providing critical analysis of the government's policies and actions for the introduction of marine aquaculture to the Conservation Council and had been a major participant in the court cases against tuna farms in Louth Bay.
. . . .Last Wednesday, in an interview with the ABC's Fiona Sewell, you accused me of merely picking up on technical points, having a complete distain for rural jobs and of operating with double standards. I find those comments unwarranted and hurtful.
Will the minister apologise for his appalling attack on the Conservation Council's principal aquaculture researcher, Mr Peter Marchant? Given that Mr Marchant is part of the minister's own community reference group on aquaculture, does he retain the minister's confidence in representing conservation interests on that group?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): I will refer the honourable member's question to my colleague in another place and bring back a reply.
Read the Governments Reply to this Question: 14th November
