Independent minister Geoff Brock has ensured the narrow defeat of a Liberal attempt to water down the State Government’s marine parks regime.

However, Liberal defector Martin Hamilton-Smith has sided with his former colleagues.

The private members bill, from shadow environment minister Michelle Lensink, sought to reduce restrictions on fishing within sanctuary zones in some of the marine parks.

The bill passed the Upper House with cross-bench support, but was narrowly defeated in the House of Assembly today by 21 votes to 20.

After the vote, the Liberal Member for Finniss Michael Pengilly was accused by Labor of pushing Brock on the floor of Parliament.

Brock said “there might have been a slip” but told Parliament he wouldn’t take the issue further.

South Australia has 19 marine parks, within which there are sanctuary zones where fishing and other commercial activity is banned. These sanctuary zones – which make up 6 per cent of SA waters – come into effect in October.

Commercial fishers have expressed concern about the impact of the zones on their livelihood, while some recreational fishers have also campaigned against aspects of the marine park regime.

Lensink’s bill aims to reduce fishing restrictions in 12 of the more than 80 sanctuary zones.

She argues that while only 6 per cent of state waters are in the zones, more than 30 per cent of South Australia’s highly productive grounds are within these areas.

Hamilton-Smith told Parliament that he had made every effort to consult widely on the marine parks bill, but no-one had been able to specify to him the impact of the sanctuary zones on fishery stocks.

He said regional community support for the sanctuary zones as they stand was “weak”.

He said he sought a compromise, but wasn’t able to achieve that.

“Once the damage is done to these regional communities, there is no turning back,” he said.

“The bill is a blunt instrument but it is the only instrument before the House. As a consequence on balance, I will be siding with country communities and family business and I will be supporting the bill.”

The gallery exploded into applause when he announced his opposition to the bill.

“There can be no greater task for us to protect that (marine) environment, but I also support small business, communities and economic growth in the regions. I have strong views on regulatory fairness and competitive neutrality. When you change the rules on a business you move the goalposts and you run the risk of sending that family business broke through the flick of a pen.

“The proponents of change must always make their case. In this case they have failed to adequately make their case to justify all of the 84 sanctuary zones with the boundaries set to come into effect on 1 October in my view.”

He said the proponents hadn’t made the case for urgency.

“Once the damage is done to these regional communities, there will be no turning back.”

However, fellow independent member of the Cabinet, Geoff Brock, said the Opposition’s approach was more about politics than the real issues involved.

He said he could not support the bill because it would wipe out 12 of the sanctuary zones without justification.

He said he had gained agreement that there would be ongoing Government assessment of the economic effects of marine parks on regional communities.

“The proposals in this bill have the potential to seriously undermine the effectiveness of the marine parks network and undermine much of the good work that’s been done over a decade,” Brock said.

“I therefore cannot support the bill in its format because it seeks to eliminate 12 sanctuary zones across the state seemly without a solid foundation. That is not a sensible or workable solution.”