HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [10.23 pm]: I will talk this evening about an annual report that was tabled today in the house—that is, the annual report of the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. I was very interested to read what is in that annual report, particularly in light of questions that I have been asking of the Minister for Environment recently in terms of management plans for the marine parks that we have in existence and the program that successive governments have said they are interested in, but successive governments have been very slow to implement; that is, to establish a representative marine reserve system for Western Australia. I note that the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority on page 1 of its annual report reiterates its vision, responsibilities and strategies. One of the responsibilities it lists is to “oversee the development and management of the marine parks and reserves system.”

I was particularly struck by the chairman’s comments in this particular report because it seemed to me that it was fairly straightforward in its comments that we are currently failing to establish an adequate representative reserve system. The annual report states —
Despite the very high biodiversity and conservation values of State waters and the pressure that is being brought to bear on those values, Western Australia has only some 12 per cent of its State waters within 13 CALM Act marine parks and reserves … and only 2.5 per cent of its State waters under a higher level of
protection.
The Marine Parks and Reserves Authority … considers that the current state development of the Western Australian State marine protected areas system does not achieve best practice (and much needed), biodiversity and conservation outcomes. It also does not reflect contemporary community expectations for marine conservation, and the substantial benefits that marine protected areas bring to all sectors of the community.

I think this is also very pertinent in the debates that we have had in the past few months about the state of fish stock off the west coast of Western Australia as well. The report continues —
Priorities for developing the marine conservation program and Western Australia have been substantially based on the candidate areas identified in the 1994 report of the Marine Parks and Reserves Selection Working Group … also known as the Wilson Report. The … report continues to serve as an appropriate and
scientifically valid guide to identifying the important and representative areas of State waters should be considered for inclusion in the marine parks and reserves system.

On page 2 the report also goes on to state —
… other proposed reserves including Geographe Bay/Leeuwin-Naturaliste/Hardy Inlet … and the Dampier Archipelago/Regnard … proposals, which were at an advanced stage prior to the election —. The comment was made that four marine parks were well progressed and then the election was called. Although these
parks were at an advanced stage prior to the election, they have not been so fortunate and are once more before government for consideration. The report continues —
…The MPRA has provided advice to the Minister for Environment that the Government should progress the
implementation of these proposals without delay.…
 

In relation to the forward program for marine conservation, the MPRA has provided advice to the Minister for Environment that the MPRA considers the Government should adopt a three year work program, the objective of which would be to substantially complete a system of representative marine protected areas for the State as envisaged by the 1994 report … The MPRA believes the implementation of its proposed forward program would provide a sound basis for the preservation and management of the biodiversity values of the State’s marine environment. The proposed forward program would, in summary, consist of implementing the proposals for the MPR’s that are currently in process, including the Pilbara/Eighty Mile Beach proposal, and undertaking planning for new MPR’s on the South Coast and in the Kimberley, the other two areas of high marine conservation value
in the State that currently have no protection or representation in the CALM Act MPR system. A program in the latter two areas would also provide a complementary process to the Commonwealth marine planning processes that are currently underway in the southwest of the State and in the Kimberley.

It is also interesting to note that the report states —
In relation to the Kimberley, the Authority has proposed to the Minister for Environment that the Government urgently protect the Kimberley through the establishment of a multiple use marine park over the whole of State waters in the Kimberley with the full reservation of currently identified iconic areas by an aappropriate zoning system in the broader multiple use marine park.

I reiterate “protect the Kimberley through the establishment of a multiple use marine park over the whole of State waters in the Kimberley”. The report also states —
In relation to broader policy issues, the MPRA is concerned that there appears to be continued resistance in some sectors to the use of sanctuary zones as a key tool in marine conservation, particularly in the face of the overwhelming local and international scientific evidence of both the effectiveness of, and need for, sanctuary zones. In that regard, the previous Government committed to a review of the role of marine sanctuaries in
biodiversity conservation. This was a welcome initiative, however, the report, which was completed sometime ago, has yet to be released by Government. The Authority encourages the Government to release this report as a matter of urgency.

At this point I will also lay my criticisms at the feet of the previous government, which also failed to put a realistic time frame on establishing an adequate system of marine protected areas in the marine environment. It wasted eight years and achieved very little. The report goes on to state —
In relation to another of the MPRA’s key responsibilities, the audit of existing management plans, the Authority has included its summary —

In this report. In relation to the Jurien Bay marine park, the report states —
… the audit clearly demonstrated that the park is failing to meet the objective of comprehensive protection of its biodiversity values through provision of adequate sanctuary zones, and there is qualitative evidence that the objectives for the conservation of populations of targeted finfish are not being achieved.

As with the MPRA’s other audit processes, the determination of quantitative outcomes is severely hampered by the lack of coordinated and structural monitoring programs. The Authority has made a number of recommendations arising from the Jurien Bay Marine Park periodic audit that are set out in the audit report and are available on the MPRA section of the DEC website. I raise the point of the Jurien Bay Marine Park having had a lot to do with debate in the public arena about the establishment of that marine park—that is, outlining that it was a Clayton’s marine park as very little of its area was a no-take zone.

This report from the MPRA vindicates those concerns raised by the Greens (WA) and other conservation-minded people. If we simply establish a marine park in name and then make the majority of that marine park available to crayfishers and recreational fishing and everybody else, it is a marine park only in name. It does not achieve things like conservation of the population of finfish. I again refer to the report — A further audit initiative was the commencement of the 10 year audit of the Shark Bay Marine Reserves which is several years overdue.
This is a matter that I have been pursuing via questions. The report continues — The delays in commencement of this audit have been exacerbated by lack of funds and availability of the
required support from DEC.

That is quite contrary to the reply that the Minister for Environment gave me today in this place. I asked the minister
to ensure that sufficient resources are provided to the Department of Environment and Conservation to carry out these reviews. The answer was that reviews are scheduled and resourced in the context of overall planning priorities for proposed new and existing marine parks and reserves. What a load of bureaucratic goggledegook that is! The Marine Parks and Reserves Authority is tasked with auditing these matters. It says quite clearly the fact that this review is overdue by several years is because it lacks funds and the required support to do it. The report continues —
The Shark Bay Marine Reserves and Marmion Marine Park have management plans that have considerably exceeded their ten year term and are not outcome based.

I trust the minister will check Hansard at some point, as I am sure she will, because she needs to go back to her department and tell them to stop giving her inaccurate advice. I

am going to run out of time. In effect this annual report is critical. It indicates that the management of marine parks is inadequate in its funding and resourcing. It also rings warning bells in terms of management risk, particularly in relation to the management of fishing in marine reserves. I refer members to page 28 of the annual report. It is essential that people be under no illusion that the marine reserves that we have are being adequately managed. Page 28 states —
Targeted fish populations, where they could be estimated, consistently scored poorly across all marine parks and reserves indicating an extreme risk of management failure for this KPI …

For that reason, we need adequate marine protection areas in this state as a matter of emergency.