Parliamentary Committees

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

Ms BREUER (Giles) (11:02): I move:

That the 61^st report of the committee, on coastal development, be noted.

I thank the other members for their generosity in allowing us to move this motion today. This is a very lengthy report. We have been involved in a very long process all year, and I wanted to present the report to the house before Christmas. It is a pleasure to stand up here today and do so.

The committee, by its own motion, commenced the inquiry in August 2006—so members can see the length of time involved. Because of the beauty of the South Australian coastline and the popularity of coastal recreation, there is an increasing demand for development along the coastline. This increases the pressure not only on local communities but also on the coastal environment.

While acknowledging the complexity of the issues around coastal development, in the light of increasing pressure on the coast for housing, recreation, industry and other uses, the committee feels that more could be done to protect coastal landscapes and habitats. Generally, the committee believes that South Australia is maintaining good best practice guidelines, policies and strategies. However, there are issues around compliance, consistency and integration that need to be addressed.

In general, however good they are, best practice policies and guidelines are only advice. Advice can still be ignored, rules bent and inappropriate developments put in place, despite clear policies that should prevent this from happening. Inappropriate development is still occurring in coastal zones, even in fragile systems, such as dunes. No matter how good the development plan, there is always the potential for bad development decisions, and the committee has explored ways in which to tighten up planning loopholes and improve legislation.

The committee was very concerned that the Coast Protection Board may only direct (that is, enforce decisions) under very limited conditions, such as for substantial earthworks or the construction of protection works. Most submissions and witnesses saw this as a problem, particularly as about 20 per cent of the board's advice was not followed by planning authorities.

An issue of particular concern was that the majority of the advice on development applications that was not followed recommended refusal or attached conditions on account of coastal hazards. The committee believes that the Coast Protection Board should be given power of direction in regard to coastal hazards.

While many state agencies are involved in coastal management, very few have a coastal focus. Without an agency with a specific coastal focus, state departments may provide local governments with conflicting advice about coastal management issues. There have been problems in other states that have not kept their coast-based agencies, and the committee believes that to enable integrated management and planning it is critical to maintain a specifically coast-focused agency in South Australia.

In general, the committee believes that the protection of wildlife and biodiversity is lacking. There is no mandatory development application referral to the Native Vegetation Council, even though that body must approve any clearance of native vegetation. There is no referral process for developments threatening rare or vulnerable species.

The role of NRM boards in planning is vague and, despite much coastal biodiversity assessment, risk assessment and capacity building, there is no formal impact back into the planning process, and this should be addressed. The committee believes that the relevant aspects of biodiversity plans, marine plans and natural resource plans must be reconciled and reflected in development plans.

The committee believes that establishing development plan coastal zones over land containing sensitive features throughout South Australia should be a priority, along with regular revisions of the zoning. The advantages of coastal zoning are that development is not placed in areas at risk of coastal hazards, and sensitive coastal features can be protected from the adverse impacts of development. Consistent and appropriate zoning of coastal land would also assist in overcoming issues of lack of consistency and integration.

Visual impact is a major issue on the coast. The committee feels that areas of significant landscape value should be recognised and stringently protected, perhaps by the establishment of scenic protection areas, with associated guidelines for development. Ribbon, or uncontrolled, development should be prevented by the use of methods such as urban growth boundaries for coastal towns and careful zoning. As more people explore the sea change phenomenon and move to coastal areas, many coastal communities report a loss of sense of place. This is often due to new residential and tourism developments being out of character with the existing environment. Built form has had a significant impact on both visual impact and scenic value, and the committee believes that new development must be kept in sympathy with adjoining development, appropriate for its location and in harmony with its environment.

The committee is concerned that the condition of the coastal zone is generally declining. Pressure on the coast is increasing faster than any ability of the coast to stabilise and self-repair. Coastal and marine environments are likely to continue to be under pressure, and the active management of human impacts on the coastal zone is critical to maintaining the health and productivity of coastal and marine systems. The committee explores a wide range of approaches to do this, including: managing access; preventing development in fragile areas; utilising urban growth boundaries to contain development; and encouraging the planting of local species in all coastal developments.

The current planning system does not address cumulative impact where either a single development might have ongoing effects that accumulate over time and/or a number of combined stresses can have a severe impact. Developments are assessed in isolation at a single point in time. The committee felt that changes should be made to development plans to limit contributing activities where there is evidence to indicate that the cumulative impacts have occurred and that some environmental threshold has been or will be breached. This process will be facilitated by thorough biodiversity assessments of coastal and marine habitats, the collection of baseline data, risk assessment workshops and ongoing monitoring programs with detailed reporting against sustainability indicators for coastal, marine and estuarine habitats across South Australia.

The committee chose to place considerable attention on the impact of coastal development on marine systems for several reasons, particularly the strong concerns noted in submissions and by witnesses. Problems in marine systems are much less visible and obvious, and there is less information available. For example, it is easy to observe damage to a dune system, but marine habitats are out of sight below the surface of the water. Marine habitats, such as seagrasses and reefs, are at risk and are being lost at a considerable rate, particularly in metropolitan waters. In addition, while there are many books and reports on the impacts of development on coastal habitats, there is relatively little focus on the impacts of development on marine systems.

Water quality is the biggest single issue threatening marine habitats, and the committee supports strongly all strategies to prevent nutrient-rich and sediment-laden water entering marine systems. This might include water reuse, reduction in nutrients and sediment loads, and stormwater retention. Cleaning up and reusing stormwater and wastewater is critical for drought-proofing South Australia, but it is also critical for the survival of valuable marine ecosystems. The committee has suggested a number of aspirational targets aimed at protecting marine systems.

The committee acknowledges that providing sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of rapidly growing communities situated in such fragile environmental landscapes is one of the key challenges affecting the management of the coast. The provision of coastal infrastructure and services can strain local council budgets, particularly for small dispersed populations in country areas. This is a particular issue in communities with high numbers of seasonal visitors where infrastructure needs such as the supply and treatment of water, waste management and provision of facilities must cater to a much higher level of demand than that of the resident ratepaying population. The committee feels that the development of a long-term infrastructure plan, with an outline of funding for the first 10 years, would greatly assist in planning for coastal infrastructure.

While not an impact of coastal development, nearly every submission voiced concern about climate change and sea level rise. Climate change impacts on almost all the terms of reference of this inquiry. Climate change must be considered in all aspects of planning, development and assessment. South Australia was the first state to incorporate allowances for sea level rise in its policies. The committee regards it as important to ensure that development plans are amended to incorporate updated IPCC projections of sea level rise as they are provided. The committee regards climate change and sea level rise, in particular, as the biggest single issue facing coastal planning. The measures outlined above and described in detail in this report will greatly improve South Australia's ability to protect and preserve its coast.

The committee heard from 19 witnesses during the inquiry and received 31 submissions, and I take this opportunity to thank all those people who contributed to the inquiry. As a result of the inquiry, the committee has made 86 recommendations, which is probably the most it has made in a report, and looks forward to their consideration and implementation by the government. I particularly acknowledge the work of my fellow members of the committee, particularly the member for Schubert (who is always very vocal, but has brought a passion to this), the Hon. Michelle Lensink MLC, the member for Fisher, the Hon. Russell Wortley MLC and certainly the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC, whose background in environmental issues has been most valuable in the compilation of this report.

I also pay tribute to Dr Sue Murray-Jones, our research officer for the purpose of writing this report. Her background, experience and knowledge were invaluable in putting together this report, and many times we referred to her. It was a bit of an experiment to engage someone just for the time of this report of the ERD Committee. In the past, we have had research officers on contract for two years. This was an experiment, but her work was wonderful and we appreciate what Dr Murray-Jones did in helping us put together this report. I thank her very much, and certainly we will be using this system in the future for other reports.

I also pay tribute to Phil Frensham, our long-suffering secretary, who controls us. He holds the reins and is the person who found Dr Sue Murray-Jones and guided her during the first few weeks of putting together the report. We appreciate the work that Mr Frensham does. He organised a trip away for us and we went to a conference in Queensland which related to this report. Long-suffering poor Phil had to cope with airline cancellations and all sorts of things, but he did it with his usual goodwill and smiles; and I thank him very much. I thank the current committee staff for their work in preparing this report and the support they provided to the committee. I commend the report to the parliament.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:15): I support the member for Giles. I have been a member of the ERD Committee for many years (including time as its chair) and this is one of the longest, most detailed reports which I have had anything to do with. I congratulate the committee, which includes the Presiding Member (member for Giles), the Hons Mark Parnell, David Ridgway (who was on the committee but retired), Michelle Lensink, Bob Such, Russell Wortley and me. I also thank our officers, including Mr Philip Frensham (whom I have known for many years; and we certainly cause him some grey hairs) and the visiting star, the person who was brought in, Dr Sue Murray-Jones.

It is a lesson to the parliament, particularly the committee system—a system that I support strongly. If the committee system works and its members are diligent it can be a huge asset to the parliament. In this instance we brought in a person from outside with expertise in the area. Dr Sue Murray-Jones has been very valuable in assisting the committee, because we threaded our way through a complicated, detailed report with 86 recommendations. I thought it was too many and on several occasions I tried to prune it back, but I found that I could not do it because all the recommendations are relevant to a subject that is very important.

It was a reference which I originally mooted to the committee. I am fortunate to wake up most mornings in Adelaide and stare this issue of coastal management in the face. I have observed the decay and the result of human infringement on our beautiful coastline. In the few years I have had a property near the beach since 1991 I have seen huge changes—which are not all for the better. A lot of it is man made and there are things which governments from both sides have done and of which I am not proud.

I thought the reference was worth doing but I had no idea that the report would be as detailed as it is. I commend the report to members because it is done on a very cross-political basis. It is not a dissenting report. I know there are things in the report about which I am concerned, including Streaky Bay council.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr VENNING: I hear what the member for Stuart is saying. I did raise the matter but it still remains in the report. Not everyone will agree with everything in a report, particularly where there are 86 recommendations. This is a much bigger report than I ever imagined. I am a born-again environmentalist, especially when it comes to protecting our coastal lands and waters. The member for Stuart and I do not always agree, but we have to be sensible and say, 'Hang on, not all of us can live by the sea, not all of us have the right to build whatever house we want to build, not all of us want to protect the environment just for ourselves.'

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I have declared that I own a property at West Beach; and I am not running away from that. There are 86 recommendations in this report, but I cannot think of a committee that has made half as many recommendations as this. Many issues are involved and I want to highlight a few things.

Development assessment panels are a new creation of councils, and I believe they have to have a stronger emphasis on coastal management; in other words, all the councils involved with coastal management should have at least one member on that DAP with expertise in the area. Recommendation 6 states:

The committee recommends that the government clarifies the role of the Coast Protection Board as a referral agency under the Development Act to ensure that the board's considerations, advice and directions extend beyond physical coast protection to include protection of habitat and wildlife.

I believe that is a most important recommendation. There has always been some confusion, because we have a Coast Protection Board and the debate is always whether the board is being listened to and whether it has teeth.

There are two recommendations under marine planning. The role of NRM boards quite clearly has been pulled out here and, in fact, there are nine recommendations on the role of the NRM board. I think it is appropriate that this report is reminding the NRM boards of their responsibilities. The member for Stuart would be interested to know that appeal rights have been assessed.

There are many conflicts of interest, and there are three recommendations on conflicts of interest; and I think they always should be revisited. There are two recommendations on lack of integration and consistency. That has always been the case; we always find places where the act has not been abided by. Coastal zoning is an important issue and there are three recommendations in relation to coastal zoning. There were five recommendations in relation to the need for a regional approach, and one recommendation regarding legal liability. Visual impact is another very important aspect, and we have five recommendations on that.

Built form was an area that came under quite some discussion, and the bulk of the evidence (and this is a very thick document) is set aside for built form. Cumulative impacts, off-road vehicles and access tracks, biodiversity, feral species of animals, coastal acid sulphate soils, marine water quality, the impact of specific developments, lack of information, ownership of coastal land, preservation of coastal land, infrastructure, demographics, climate change and shortage of planning staff in environmental offices have all been addressed in this huge report.

I know not everyone will agree with it, but the opposition had two representatives on the committee and we assess that, apart from some areas (one of which the member for Stuart will highlight), the report is generally worthy of the house's support. Without any further ado, I again congratulate the chair and our officers. I have always enjoyed my committee work in this place, and this certainly has been an interesting reference. It was a long time coming; I wish we had started it six months earlier than we did, but all good things come to those who wait.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (11:24): I was waiting to get a copy of the report but I have not received one, so I will speak from my limited knowledge of it. I declare my interests; I am a ratepayer and my brother was the mayor, so I have some knowledge of this. During this process there has been an orchestrated campaign by a group of people reflecting on the District Council of Streaky Bay, and the first thing I would ask about these people, these malcontents, who have been complaining is: what do they do for a living? At the end of the day surely, in a democracy, the elected local people are entitled to make the decisions. What right does a bureaucrat in the Department for Environment and Heritage have to write to the council and want it to hand over its powers?

Ms Breuer: That was the point of the whole report; there is too much stuff happening out there that should not be out there.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: So the member for Giles is saying to me, and to the people, that the local people do not have the wit or wisdom to make the right decision; she is saying that we have to have a bureaucrat based in Adelaide.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I do not care what the member for Schubert agrees with. Let me say this about it—and my view is clear on this, I have always held these views and so do local people—in a democracy, when local people elect people to look after their interests, they are the ones who should make the decision. Why should this Kirner fellow, who is nothing more than a left-wing agitator living down there, deny other people the ability to go down on the beach? Don't think I don't know what is going on: they have the ear of the government, they got stuck into the council, and it was mischievous, malicious and incorrect. The person who wanted to build the residence had done so in accordance with the law of this land, yet a bureaucrat in the Department for Environment and Heritage—Sir Humphrey No. 1 or 2—thinks that they know better. What a dreadful thing to have elected people make decisions, what a dreadful thing! I thought that was what we all stood for.

We know these bureaucrats. Of course, this little group of agitators do not want other people to go down there because they want to use it for their surfing beach. That is what they want to use it for, they are the surfing group down there. I ask: what else they are doing down there?

The Hon. R.G. Kerin: Taking their clothes off.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, I leave that to the judgment of the member for Frome. But what else do they do? Why is it so wrong for the elected members and their panel to sit in judgment in relation to these matters? Why should the council have to hand it over? The report has just been handed to me. Look at this stuff, and I quote:

A contemporary case study illustrates some of the difficulties surrounding coastal decision-making. The case study refers to an application for a housing development in the District Council of Streaky Bay, at Searcy Bay. This has been a controversial development, with much media attention.

Who generated it, how many people generated the media attention? I would like the member to tell us: how many people—three, four? What do they do for a living and how long have they lived there? No-one can answer. I know the answer, and the local people know the answer. The report continues:

An application was lodged in April 2007 with the District Council...Concerns were raised by residents and conservation groups...

It does not say how many.

On 27 August 2007, a complaint was lodged by the Friends of Sceale Bay about the conduct of a member of the council's development assessment panel. The allegation is that the panel member breached the Development Act by failing to disclose a pecuniary interest... and by actively participating in the development assessment...

Well, here you go; when they are not going to get their own way they resort to personal denigration.

The complaint suggested that the panel member was the brother of the proponent of the development application, as well as a director and 50% shareholder...

It goes on. I want to know: why has the case study not gone further? The member for Fisher got involved in it, and he would have a lot of knowledge about it, wouldn't he? The report continues:

The Minister for Environment and Conservation's letter to Streaky Bay Council led to some media coverage implying that the District Council of Streaky Bay was not impressed by the Minister's intervention...

Well, that was right. Then we had Mr Parnell asking questions of the Minister for Urban Development and Planning. Where in this document is the response from the district council? Why is it such a biased document? I challenge the chairman to do a supplementary report and ask the council for its side of the story.

Ms Breuer: We did.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Come on! You went and visited the site. Did you take the council with you? Who took you down to the site?

Ms Breuer: We went on a trip there.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: You are not going to answer; I know the answer. All I can say is that, if this is the best you can do, it is a pretty poor effort. It is a biased attack. I have lived in the District Council of Streaky Bay area for all my life; I have been a member of it myself, and I think it is very unfair that a small group of left-wing Labor Party stooges—

Ms Breuer interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: —of the Friends of Sceale Bay would use their influence with the department to go up and get stuck into the council and denigrate elected officials. If this is the best you can do, instead of being objective and sensible and wanting bureaucrats to run the show, you may as well shut down the parliament and hand that over to the bureaucrats too. I think it is a pretty poor effort, so I am not impressed with it whatsoever.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:31): I would like to pick up on some aspects of the report, indeed, the local government side of it that the member just talked about. In fairness to the honourable member, he has exposed the hypocrisy of what is going on in this state and the efforts to take away everything from local government. They are local people; they know what is going on, they act in the best interests of their local communities, and they should not be slandered and treated with disrespect, as they currently are. Mayor Ian Gunn is an extremely good man, and I find it a credit to know him and the activities of his council.

I think for a group of environmental fascists to force this inquiry on members of parliament and have them go over there is an absolute nonsense. They are self-serving and self-centred. They have their place; and they do not want anyone else to go there. They want to do what they want to do, and that is it. And there are a few of them around the place. Environmental fascism in South Australia is alive and well.

What may well happen with this report is the same thing that happened with the Natural Resources Committee of parliament's report on Deep Creek. It was a very good report and it was just pushed to one side by these idiotic bureaucrats in the department of environment. The minister is taking no action; indeed, after all the work done by a broad cross-section parliamentary committee, it was just put to one side. I suspect that this is what will happen.

The fact is that there are members of the government who do have a bit of testicular fortitude—members such as minister Paul Holloway, who knows what has to be done, and others. I do not sing out of the same hymn book with some of these members very often, but they do know that you have to get on with it. They do know that you need to have appropriate development around the coast. They do know that these environmental fascists will not stop everything. They do know that you have to get on with life.

I am sorry that I also have not had time to read the report in depth, but the fact of the matter is, picking up from what the member for Giles said, and others on both sides of the argument, it is pretty easy to read between the lines. The people who push these things are contemptuous. They do not want local government to be the local authority. They would rather have some bureaucrat in far off Adelaide making the decisions, so that the local people do not have any say over the land on which they live and where they go about their daily lives, land which they enjoy, where they grew up and where their children want to grow up.

I think it is an act of arrant stupidity, and I find it extremely disappointing. Who wants to bring the Native Vegetation Authority into anything more, for heaven's sake? Anything that is mandatory referral to them takes about three years to get a response, and then it is 'no'. You can bet your bottom dollar on that. The Native Vegetation Authority is an absolute mob of no hopers. The government has taken steps. I commend once again minister Holloway who has been involved in putting in place a decent council which may try to sort out the job a bit.

People actually have to live in this state. They have to live along the coast or inland, they can live in the hills, and you have to have proper things put in place. I have no argument with that whatsoever. Good planning is the way of the future. However, the clap-trap that has been produced from this, by all accounts, will not do any good for anybody. Environmental fascists will take great delight in reading this. You wait and see.

As the honourable member before me said: how many of them was it that stirred the possum on this? Two or three. They are probably sitting down there in the sandhills smoking dope, doing nothing, and getting the dole—absolutely non-productive to society. I am disappointed with the outcomes. I hope that those responsible ministers in the government who do want to see something happening in South Australia get on with it. I suspect that it will be consigned to history, unfortunately. That is not to say that there are, indeed, certain aspects of the report that are not useful.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. L. Stevens.