Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

SOUTHERN PITT WATER PROTECTION (MARINE FARM RESTRICTION) BILL 2003 (No. 47)

Second Reading

Mr MORRIS (Lyons - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Mr Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to this House, the Southern Pitt Water Protection Bill 2003 as my first piece of legislation. It is legislation that when passed, as I am sure it will be, will ensure that Southern Pitt Water remains free of commercial oyster exploitation. Given that the minister has announced his intention, I now wish the members of this House their opportunity to vote and to show whether their loyalty lies with the people who voted for them or just with their party.

Indeed, the people have spoken and the message is clear, at least to me. For more than four years now there have been petitions, public meetings, council decisions and lobbying, but the minister is deaf to all of this and he is captive to a small sectional interest who want to relocate and expand and have spied a convenient location close at hand. They have then managed to get this proposal up, knowing that it is clearly against the wishes of the majority in the community and the majority of the Sorell Council. The announcement by the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment to approve the marine farming plan exposed the treachery of the previous minister, Mr Llewellyn, when he announced that the proposal would be sent back for further consideration only weeks prior to the last State election announcement, when he certainly knew it was imminent. He should have been more honest with the community and worn the consequences of that honesty. Today, I want him to tell this Parliament his true position and vote accordingly.

The other Labor member for Lyons I would like to hear from is the Government Whip, Mr Ken Bacon, who has been keen to point out his personal opposition to the expansion of oyster farming in Southern Pitt Water. Indeed, I shall quote him:

'To the dear constituent,

re: proposed expansion of oyster farms in southern area Pitt Water

I write to you to reiterate my total opposition to the expansion of oyster bed leases into the Southern Pitt Water area or, in fact, any area that would restrict or take away the public's usage of our precious waterways for sporting or fishing activities. In addition to opposing new or extended oyster leases, I have written a letter of support to the Tasmanian Community Fund for funding from the Australian Family Foundation Incorporated to commence a program of eradication of the feral oyster beds in south east Tasmania in an attempt to make these waters free of any oysters.'

He includes a copy of that letter and it is signed Ken Bacon, MHA for Lyons, Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly and Chair of Committees.

I also wish to hear the position of the Liberal party, who have been very silent. The Leader, Mr Hidding, indicated the other day that he would not be supporting this bill. I am not sure exactly what he said to the community but I would like him to tell us what his position is and let the community know as well.

I will now go into a little bit of the history of this issue. Back in April 1999 Mr Llewellyn tabled a petition containing about 1 500 signatures objecting to the Pitt Water marine farming plan proposal because it, and I quote:

'will have a negative impact on the marine life of the area and will have recreation and visual implications which would adversely affect tourism in the area. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the extensions proposed for the marine farm are not granted'.

Thank you, Minister, for coming and being in the House while this is in.

Mr Llewellyn - I hope you give me time to say something.

Mr MORRIS - I will indeed. In August 2001 the Marine Farming Planning Amendment Bill 2001 was introduced and on the second reading Peg Putt was the only person to speak and vote against it. Contrary to what Minister Green told the recent public meeting when he claimed that there was tripartite support for the outcome of the review of the Marine Farming Act in 2001, the public record shows that Peg Putt MHA not only spoke to the debate about the Greens' concerns with the planning approval process but also called on the House to divide and was the only one to vote against this bill.

On 26 December 2001, Mr Llewellyn presented a petition signed by approximately 1 189 citizens of Tasmania, praying that the proposed extension of marine farm leases in Pitt Water district not be granted. During 2002 the marine farm proposal to remove 25 hectares from northern Pitt Water and establish 50 hectares of leases in the area of southern Pitt Water was submitted to the Marine Farming Planning Review Panel. This was met with loud community opposition. We have received plenty of letters, e-mails and phone calls from residents of the Sorell area who are despairing at having no effective say in developments in their own community.

Regarding the Sorell Council, in a council-sponsored poll it was revealed that 75 per cent of the local community are against the proposed marine farming expansion and Mayor Torenius has been quite outspoken about her council's opposition to this wretched proposal. In a courageous move recently, the Sorell Council served Minister Green with an environmental protection notice in an attempt to protect their precious waterways from the scourge of the ever-expanding feral oyster pest. When public comment was sought on the proposal in 2001, 544 representations were made opposing this expansion and only 46 in favour, yet the minority had a clear win. Yet again, the people came out in force recently on 26 May, when 600-700 people turned up to a public meeting attending by Minister Green.

I am not going to say much more on this, but it is quite clear that this proposal to expand oyster farming into Southern Pitt Water is clearly against the wishes of many in the community. They do not see it as in their interests. They do not believe that there will be any significant employment outcomes for this. What they see is that the feral oyster pest that is already established in Southern Pitt Water that is causing them great concern now will be exacerbated significantly, that the leases will take up areas that they have traditionally been able to use for their recreational pursuits, and also that it will impact on the visual amenity across Southern Pitt Water.

So what we have here is a proposal that not only has no economic value of significance but has a significant detriment to the local population. It is not going to add significantly to the economy of this State, if much at all. The oyster farmers who want to relocate and expand into this area need to find a way of operating that does not cause any disturbance to those around them. Under their current arrangement they are not succeeding in doing that and under the proposed arrangements it will be far worse.

In conclusion, I would like to thank and offer my support to those who have fought against this proposal and will continue fighting against this proposal and have given so generously of their time for the good of their community. I thank them very much and I would now like to hear from both parties as to what their position is and I will give them a chance to vote at the end.

Mr SPEAKER - The honourable member has taken 10 minutes, so I will give the minister 10 minutes and the Opposition 10 minutes, and the other 15 minutes will have to go because there is only three-quarters of an hour for the whole debate.

[3.40 p.m.]

Mr GREEN (Braddon - Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment) - Mr Speaker, while the member brings in this bill to the House based on the motion, it is about the issue of planned marine farming in Tasmania. We have said from the beginning that we have to have a consistent planning approach to marine farming in the State, and of course the member, while reflecting on decisions that have been made in the recent past, failed to make the public aware that what I had said in relation to the original act - that is the Marine Farm Planning Act - received tripartite support from this House.

Ms Putt - Oh, with significant reservations put on record by the Greens - I was here at the time.

Mr GREEN - You were here at the time and I will quote something from Hansard that puts it into perspective. If the Greens were serious about this argument they would not have their local member up bringing the bill in; they would have their environmental spokesperson bringing it in. That just goes to highlight that this is all about politics, it is not about a serious piece of legislation, and I will go on to point out why that is the case in a few moments' time.

Mr Morris - Unlike you, we're multi-skilled.

Mr GREEN - When you have a look at when the original bill went through Parliament in 1995 there were lots of people quoted in that, but in particular of course Mrs Milne who led the debate for the Greens. She said:

'I want to put on the record that I am appreciative of the fact that at least there has been an attempt to address a whole range of issues in the marine farming planning' -

In the way that we plan for marine farms, in other words.

She talked about the fact that for the last 10 years, through the rapid expansion of marine farming in Tasmania, it had been done on an ad hoc basis. She talked about that specifically. Then she talked about the fact that the industry itself makes an enormous contribution to the State's economy and gives us the opportunity to sell our products that are clean and green into a market, into a world that has even more polluted waterways, and she says it presents a great opportunity for us. People can look at what was said in Hansard in 1995, and I wish the member who just resumed his seat had taken the time to have a look at it, because he would see the hypocrisy that is being put forward at the moment with regard to this bill is all about politics and nothing else.

Mr Morris - Absolute rubbish.

Mr GREEN - As I have indicated, Mrs Milne, in her contribution, talked about issues to do with the planning system, the ad hoc nature of it and the ability to actually achieve anything as a result and the fact that marine farming had gone on without any semblance of a reasonable plan. She admitted that as a result of the legislation that was coming into the House we would be at least in a position to have an unbiased position in terms of marine farm planning. She supported amendments to ensure that the director of environment was placed onto the panel and she also supported amendments that ensured the quorum went from four to five to assist in facilitating the decision-making process with a broad range of people with broad expertise on the panel.

Then we came to 2001. If I misled the crowd at Sorell -

Ms Putt - Yes - which you did.

Mr GREEN - on that night by suggesting that that had tripartite support, I want to apologise for that. I think anybody who was there would admit that it was a fairly large meeting and it was hard to get one's views across, nevertheless I did say that and I want to apologise for suggesting that, when quite obviously Ms Putt voted against it. But what did she vote against? Amendments to the bill -

Ms Putt - I hope you're going to read bits out of Hansard about why I said I voted against it. No, you'll only do that when you want to selectively quote Christine Milne, that's right.

Mr SPEAKER - Order. The minister only has limited time so he should be uninterrupted.

Mr GREEN - I could read bits out. The reason I have not read them verbatim is because I am aware of the time. I could read bits out where you have said that you were very supportive of the fact that if a lease was given up people would have to remove all material from that by compulsion - no options. You said that was good thing. But the amendments to the act were in the first place about ensuring - and people need to understand this - that marine farm planning has to have with it an environmental impact statement. No land-based planning at the planning stage has to have an environmental impact statement with it. That environmental impact statement is not just about the overall plan but also about the actual activity that goes on within the zone, so it is extremely comprehensive from that point of view. That was included. The other part that was included of course is that a member from local government was to be on the board to ensure that local government had an input into the planning decisions for marine farms. That was agreed to and that is exactly what happened. As I said a moment ago, the other important part was that it would become compulsory for leaseholders to clean up sites that they had vacated as a result.

Now, when you look at what has been put forward in this bill - and I have taken time to have a look at this to understand exactly what the Greens are talking about, with respect to the lines on the map that they have indicated in their bill - it talks about moving the boundaries of the zones. I am quoting from the bill here:

'Pitt Water Estuary consists of all the area within Pitt Water Estuary from the high tide mark beginning from the south of an imaginary line drawn at the Sorell Causeway running from Pitt Water Bluff to Midway Point, thence south, excluding Orielton Lagoon, including Iron Creek Bay and finishing at the mouth of the Estuary at Sandy Point, with an approximate area of 2392 hectares.'

When you have a look at the map, if you draw an imaginary line south from the imaginary line off the end of the Sorell Causeway, from what I can see anyway - and I am quite happy to hand a map over to the member who can perhaps draw on there exactly where he means by this - if you look at the map and look at the points that you are talking about, what it really means is that it cuts across. If you want to take in Iron Creek Bay, you have to go from that point that you talked about in a north-easterly direction over to Ironstone Creek, which leaves in Oaks Point and all of the habitat for birds and all those other species that inhabit those areas, up into Ironstone Creek leaving in Jones Bay and Okines Beach. All those areas are left in there presumably for marine farm planning.

If you look at what has been put forward to the House today it is nothing more than a local member trying to appease what he sees as a political position that is going to win him some votes. It does not take into consideration all of the effort and work that has been done over the years to try to bring forward a marine farm planning system that allows for decisions to be made. Of course, every individual who makes a submission to the panel has the opportunity to be heard. We have ensured that local government is represented, we have ensured that the spread of those people involved in making the decisions have the expertise required to allow them make those decisions.

I think that it is disgraceful. Fair enough, Ms Putt voted against the amendments last time, although I cannot understand why because they improved the plan, but the fact is that we have a situation here where there has not been a decent contribution made to ensuring that we have a consistent approach to marine farm planning in this State. This is about playing politics along parochial lines - I guess that is the best way of putting it - because there is an issue that the Greens believe that they can attach themselves to and in some way win votes. We have to make tough decisions from time to time and I have indicated I respect the community's position on this. It has been extremely tough, but all of the information that has come to us means that marine farm planning is sustainable.

Mr SPEAKER - The honourable member's time has expired. The honourable shadow minister -

Mr GREEN - It is not about a wedge. Mr Speaker, if you could give me a couple more minutes. The marine farm planning system has been put in place -

Mr SPEAKER - Minister, there was agreement reached for 10 minutes for the major speakers.

Mr GREEN - I ask for two more minutes.

Mr SPEAKER - Do you want to give up two minutes of your time?

Mr Rockliff - Yes.

Mr SPEAKER - Okay. The honourable member will give you two minutes of his time. He has only eight now. You have two more minutes.

Mr GREEN - It is not about a wedge. It is not about increasing the first part of a major increase of marine farm planning in Southern Pitt Water. This is a decision that has been made based on what is sustainable in Southern Pitt Water and it has been well thought through by people who are expert in the field and, from that point of view, unbiased. The recommendation came to me and I had to make a decision one way or the other, and of course I have made a decision based on the recommendations of the panel because we need a consistent approach.

As I said in the House the other day, if the Greens wanted to argue that I should somehow overturn this, how do you think I would then be fending off what the industry would be saying with regard to my not following the plan? I would be in the Supreme Court the other way, and I suppose they would endorse that position. Of course it was a difficult decision, but it was a decision that I had to make based on the facts that were in front of me about the sustainability of this industry, about our ability to remove feral oysters, and about our ability to work with the community to try to give them the opportunity to participate in what has been a very good industry for Tasmania overall.

[3.51 p.m.]

Mr ROCKLIFF (Braddon) - I will try to limit my remarks to eight minutes. The State Opposition will not be supporting this bill. However, we do understand the very contentious nature of the extension of oyster farms at Pitt Water and I do understand some of the concerns of the members of the Sorell community about the development. I believe some of the members of the Sorell community are here today and I acknowledge their presence and their contribution to the democratic process. A significant part of our democratic system of government is that people are allowed to have differing views and have their say, and I respect those views and welcome them, as I respect the view of the Greens and the right for Mr Morris to represent those views by bringing on a bill in this Parliament today.

It is because of this high level of community concern that I did take a very detailed look at the particular reasons why the minister made the decision behind this project. I also acknowledge and thank the minister's department for briefing the State Opposition with regard to the marine farm issue. I read all I could find and I hope satisfied myself that the minister's decision was indeed the best one, and that is founded on an objective assessment of mine. My research has convinced me that to proceed with the extension of marine farming for oyster production at Pitt Water is indeed the correct decision. Not everyone will be happy, but sometimes difficult decisions have to be made, and there is, I suppose, no way that everybody is going to be happy with every single decision, but the minister had to make a decision and this side of the House could not have any problem with that because simply that is the law.

While I am happy to accept the minister's ability to make the decision that he has, I also acknowledge that he has been made the fall guy by his party and more particularly by his predecessor, David Llewellyn, over this whole issue. I have only been in Parliament for a short period of time, but I suspect it may be a long time before I see political tap-dancing of the nature of the previous minister.

Mr Llewellyn - If you want to say that, that's your business. I've got my integrity to keep and I'm quite happy with the way I proceeded on the matter.

Mr SPEAKER - Order.

Mr ROCKLIFF - I will be keen to hear those views.

Mr Llewellyn - You can make your political points and no doubt you will.

Mr ROCKLIFF - I will, and I will be keen to hear your views too, Mr Llewellyn. Of course, he could have made the decision over 12 months ago, and if he had made the decision, the oyster growers would now be further down the track of increasing their investment and employment. But how convenient it was that an election came along. He, as the local member, could flick-pass the decision to Mr Green, who is, of course, a member of Braddon - and what would the members of Braddon care about this decision? I believe it is a pity that Labor has played politics.

Mr Green - That's not fair, either. I take my responsibilities very seriously for the whole State.

Mr ROCKLIFF - I know, but I believe a decision could have been made a long way before you made it.

Mr Green - You obviously haven't read the Circular Head Chronicle or the Advocate , because they have just expanded up there and they are thrilled about this.

Mr ROCKLIFF - Excuse me, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER - Yes. The honourable member deserves to have an opportunity to speak without being interjected upon.

Mr ROCKLIFF - As I said, when I rose to speak on this issue, I did have a good look at all the information available as to the extension of oyster farming. I am persuaded that the threat of this farming is not great, particularly with regard to it contributing to the instances of the feral oysters at Pitt Water. Feral oysters have been in the water since 1947 and oyster farming, to date, has not contributed in any measurable degree to that problem.

I am a supporter of sustainable development in this State, both for primary industry and that of the aquaculture industry and Minister Green's decision is consistent with that end. I do support the development approval framework set up under the Marine Farm Planning Act and the review process undertaken by the Marine Farming Planning Review Panel. I am truly sorry that obviously my comments will not please everyone with this decision but I believe it is a balanced viewpoint and as a result, I will not be supporting this bill brought into the House today by Mr Morris.

Mr SPEAKER - What I intended to do was to take another speaker from here and another speaker from there and give you five minutes each and then there would be five minutes left then for another speaker because I have ten minutes for each major group. So, if the honourable member wants to take her five minutes now, fair enough, or she can let Minister Llewellyn go first. It is up to her.

Ms Putt - Mr Speaker, I could let Mr Llewellyn have his five minutes on this and then speak. We were also hoping to hear from the other Labor member for Lyons.

Mr SPEAKER - That is okay. I will share it out. Mr Llewellyn next, then I will go to Ms Putt and then I will go to Mr Bacon.

[3.57 p.m.]

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons) - Mr Speaker, I take exception to some of the inferences that have been cast in my direction, particularly with respect to the integrity that I have and the process that I had to administer when I was minister for this particular act.

The Marine Farming Planning Act provides a planning process for the development of areas within our marine environment that might be used for marine farming. Within the act it is necessary for the planning authority, the review panel - and this is for the benefit of everyone who is listening, quite frankly, that I am going through this - follows a specific process involving open and transparent consultation, and a heck of a lot of that occurred during that particular process. At the end of that process the minister responsible for the Marine Farming Planning Act - in this case the minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment - has the final role of either approving or disapproving of the recommendations made by the panel. If approved, as the minister has decided regarding Pitt Water, the plan is approved and the water is then allocated to farmers who are processing, involving a board of advice and reference. If disapproved, as the plan was when I was minister, the plan is then required to be returned to the panel and the panel asked to address the issues of concern. Now, there were quite a number of issues of concern that I had and put back to the panel on that occasion.

I did not design the election to occur exactly when it did and the planning process to be timed so as it occurred when it did either. I was not aware that I was not going to be Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment after the election. I had a fairly high expectation that I would be, at that stage, but that did not occur. There is, legitimately, after any election the option of the Premier to reshuffle Cabinet and put people in different portfolios. That is what occurred on this occasion. So I did not ultimately receive the advice back from the panel. If the plan had come back to me and there had been variations in the plan that the panel had contemplated or amendments as a result of the problems that I was highlighting, then the whole plan through that process would have had had to be readvertised and go through a new approval process, just as it did in the beginning, to give everyone an opportunity to have a look at what was going on.

In the present case the plan was reviewed by the panel and returned to the minister for approval, as I understand, obviously, without further amendment. As mentioned, Minister Green approved the plan. He is the minister and he has to take all of those matters into account in that process. He has explained how he went about doing that and the decision that he took. I cannot hypothetically put myself in his position and say - because I was not in that situation - whether I would have acted the same way or not. He has the responsibility and we as a collective government have to accept that he has the responsibility for doing that. People need to know - and I know that the people at Sorell know this - that the plan is required. You cannot just have those oysters growing in Northern Pitt Water, for instance, without a plan. There is no appropriate plan for that at the moment and there needs to be a plan to encompass those existing farms that are in Pitt Water.

The Sorell Council has decided to challenge the newly-approved plan by issuing an environment protection notice over the prospective area for marine farming. That EPN will provide, I believe, a mechanism for council to argue the case before the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal and, if necessary, on matters of law, even the Supreme Court. That process is the appropriate way to handle the ongoing issue regarding Southern Pitt Water, from the council's point of view and from the community's point of view. It is therefore, in my opinion, inappropriate to attempt to change the whole planning system itself through an amendment to the Marine Farming Planning Act, such as the Greens are proposing. For that reason, I certainly will not be supporting their bill. I do not want to be provocative but I think people can understand that this bill has been introduced into this Parliament more for political expediency than for any other reason.

Time expired.

[4.03 p.m.]

Ms PUTT (Denison - Leader of the Greens) - Thank you, Mr Speaker. I speak strongly in support of this legislation. Might I just put on the record at the outset that the reason the Greens have this legislation here is to do what the legislation sets out to do; that is, to stop the expansion of marine farming into Southern Pitt Water. That is the reason we brought it before the House, because we are very keen to do what the people have asked who live in that area, who are the ones who are going to be affected on a daily basis by the decisions that have been taken by the minister.

First of all, I want to clarify the Greens' history on the expansion of oyster farming in this place. This issue has been around for a long time. When I was in the Parliament by myself over the previous four years prior to the last State election, I certainly was involved with people who got in touch with my office because they were campaigning. They did not want the expansion in oyster farms to occur. I went to Lewisham and met with them and made representations in this Parliament on their behalf. Prior to that, Christine Milne, the former Greens Leader and member for Lyons, had been involved when a proposal of this nature was first mooted. She had herself been taking a role on the ground in liaising with members of the community over the potential that there would be an expansion of marine farming in the Southern Pitt Water area. Of course most recently, Tim Morris, who is the most recent Greens member for Lyons, elected at the last election, has taken up that issue in that area on behalf of his constituents. We see nothing wrong with that. We have also had a position all the way through on marine farming, and I would need to talk about that.

I want to clarify the Greens' position on marine farming because if you believe the selective quotation and the slant that was put on it by the now Minister for the Environment you would get a wholly erroneous view of what Greens' policy is. Mind you, we are not unused to that situation because it occurs on an almost daily basis with the Labor Party completely misrepresenting our policy positions. But let me just say the Greens are on the record saying that marine farming can be a clean, green industry for Tasmania. We have never said 'Do away with all marine farms' or anything like that, so I want to make that clear. But right from the outset we have also been on the record saying that we believe the approvals process and the modified approvals processes that have been put in place to govern marine farming over the time since its advent in Tasmania are not satisfactory.

The reason they are not satisfactory is because they do not give a proper say to the people, not the same sort of say that people have under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act in respect of other developments that might occur near to where they live. We believe that people should have that right no matter what the development is, whether it is a marine farm or a shopping centre. They should have proper rights of objection and appeal, and they do not have rights of appeal in the same way that are available to citizens under LUPA and we believe that is the fundamental flaw. That of course is what has led to the situation that occurs here now at Pitt Water. We want to see marine farming brought under LUPA, just as we want to see, I might say, private timber reserves and logging that occurs on that private land also brought under LUPA, so that people can have a proper say and a proper right of appeal, not just if they can claim to have a material financial interest or whatever the other things are that are used to hedge around and restrict the rights of appeal that people have.

The advent of marine farming in this area means we are seeing the enclosure of the waters, so that what has been the commons, the common property of the people for their recreation, their enjoyment, for fishing and so on, becomes privatised, and you need to give the people a say who lose that common resource. That is what they do not have, a proper say. Of course they can be consulted but they do not have the rights of appeal so therefore what they say really cannot have the sort of weight that it should have and they cannot have the full legal right to pursue their interests.

In finishing, I want to say that you have criticised the Greens for being parochial, but what we are actually doing is listening to the people who are our electors and acting on their concerns. We are proud to be here doing it today. I would like to thank the people of the area who have come in to listen to this debate. I hope you are not too disappointed in the performance of our Parliament, and we will keep trying on your behalf.

[4.08 p.m.]

Mr KEN BACON (Lyons) - Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not really have much time to put together a position that is so emotive, and I will try to condense my thoughts into a few minutes. I wish it had been an issue that we could have debated for quite a worthy time in the Parliament. I am not going to stand up here and put one thing to the people of Sorell and put another position across whilst I am in Parliament. I have made no secret of how I feel about oyster farming. I have made it public and I have lobbied very hard over the last three years both with the prior minister, Llewellyn, and the previous minister. I think the letter from Mr Morris that he read out spells out my position fairly clearly. So does the record of Hansard of 21 May.

My position has not changed. However, I am led to believe that action has been taken against the minister by the Sorell Council, and in that context with the position I have put forward very strongly over the past three or four years, that we should not be spoiling our pristine waterways, that we should not be taking away the rights of people to enjoy those waterways for relaxation, fishing and things like that, my personal position is that I hope the council is successful. I make no bones about that. However, whilst that action is in place and whilst the minister is still consulting with the tribunal and his legal representatives are dealing with the matter, I believe Mr Morris's bill is premature and irrelevant because I believe the matter will be dealt with legally, not decided by a bill in this House. If this bill goes through, the oyster farmers are going to take some legal action; they are going to want to know why.

So it is going to go on and on. I do not believe by putting up a bill that is politically motivated to score a few political points - and that is what you are doing, it is quite clear -

Greens members interjecting .

Mr KEN BACON - and it will not resolve the issue because, as I said, it will go on and there will be legal action taken by either side, whether it be the council, the oyster farmers or whoever.

I would like to know where you were, Ms Putt. I heard you say you had been actively involved in opposing the Pitt Water proposal. I never saw you out there for the four years I was lobbying very hard, and I never heard a word from you. I was out there day after day doing it, talking to the people, putting statements of my position in their letterboxes, lobbying ministers. I never saw you anywhere, never came across you.

Ms Putt - Oh, that's too bad.

Mr KEN BACON - I represented the views of the persons -

Greens members interjecting .

Mr KEN BACON - I have only got a few minutes, so if you would let me go on. I represented the views of the position in my electorate, as I was elected to do, and I believe I did that well and to the best of my ability. I got through to one minister, I thought, but could not get through to the other minister, but I will continue. Rest assured, I will continue to fight against oyster farms which are not pond or shore-based. I do not believe they should be in our pristine waterways.

Having said that, I am not going to support the Greens' bill as I firmly believe - and I think if everybody sits back and thinks about this logically - it will be fought out in the courts, not in this House. This is not the place to deal with it now. To come in and try to score political points, I do not think that is right. The minister has made a decision; as a government I think we need to stand behind our ministers; whether we believe in everything they do or not, that is irrelevant. They have a job to do and, as a government, we have a job to do. If we are going to jump up and down, whether we agree or disagree - we will either agree or disagree with every decision made by a minister - if we are going to take every minister on because they are brave enough to make a decision, I think the Government will fall over in five minutes. I am not going to support the bill on that basis and I believe it will be fought out in the law courts.

[4.13 p.m.]

Mrs NAPIER - Mr Speaker, I know there are only a couple of minutes left and I know Mr Hidding would have liked to have been here but he is caught up in an important meeting downstairs. I would indicate that Mr Hidding, in looking at all the arguments associated with whether we should or should not have oyster beds there, might have preferred perhaps to have had the oyster beds over in the other bay and not where they are currently located. Given that the minister had available to him all the documentation and reports that were available, Mr Hidding has supported the decision of the minister, also acknowledging that there is a court case being brought forward. The member for Lyons is quite right, that may well sort it out through the courts to determine what might be the best decision made.

There are sometimes decisions that are made that you are not totally comfortable with. You have to go with the best advice that you can get. If we are to create jobs within this State, then sometimes you have to make the tough decisions. In St Helens there was a really active debate about whether there should or should not be an expansion of oyster farms. I had been involved in the group that was involved in the oyster clean-up and it turned out to be a fantastic little industry. It started off with young, unemployed people and now is a self-sustaining industry in terms of being able to clean up the oysters within St Helens bay and it has been really successful. Whilst I can acknowledge people's concern about whether there might be further expansion of oysters within the bay, I am very conscious too that there is quite a market for those kinds of oysters. One would hope that that will at least result in some jobs, even though unfortunately it does not suit everyone's final position.

Time expired.

The House divided -

AYES 4 NOES 19

Mr Booth (Teller) Mr Jim Bacon
Mr McKim Mr Ken Bacon
Mr Morris Mr Best
Ms Putt Mr Cox
Ms Giddings
Mr Green
Ms Hay
Mr Hidding
Mr Michael Hodgman
Mr Will Hodgman
Mrs Jackson
Mr Kons
Mr Lennon
Mr Llewellyn
Mrs Napier
Mr Rockliff
Mr Sturges (Teller)
Mr Whiteley
Ms Wriedt

Second reading so negatived.