Parliamentary Committees

Environment, Resources and Development Committee: Coast Protection Board and Coastal LEGISLATION

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (11:01): I move:

That the sixth report of the committee, entitled Inquiry into the Coast Protection Board and Coastal Legislation, be noted.

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee commenced this inquiry in early 2021 on the motion of the Hon. Mark Parnell, formerly of this committee. It was moved by the Hon. Mark Parnell that the committee undertake this inquiry in a respectful process. It had not had an inquiry or a review for over 50 years.

It was considered that, with all that is going on with the climate and the environment, it would be good to look at our coastal foreshores to see how they are working. The inquiry's aim was to investigate and report on the Coast Protection Act 1972, which will mark its 50^th anniversary next year, and determine whether South Australia's coastal legislation and the Coast Protection Board were still fit for purpose some 50 years later.

I recognise and thank the following members and former members of the committee for their contributions to the report, namely: Mr Michael Brown, member for Playford; Mr Fraser Ellis, member for Narungga; Mr Stephan Knoll, member for Schubert; the Hon. Tung Ngo MLC; the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC, the Hon. Robert Simms MLC; and the Hon. Terry Stephens MLC.

The committee received 54 written submissions and heard evidence from 30 different witnesses. The report makes 11 recommendations, the most important of which is the recommendation that the state government develop a statute amendment bill for the Coast Protection Act during the next parliament. Other recommendations to state government aim to contemporise the Coast Protection Act by positioning the Coast Protection Board as a leader in regional and metropolitan coastal area protection and integrated coastal management.

The committee made a commitment early on in the inquiry process to visit as many regional areas as it was reasonably able to do so, given the risk of COVID-19 related restrictions potentially hampering travel. Ultimately, though, the committee was privileged to visit many beautiful coastal areas in South Australia, including the South-East, Adelaide Plains, Yorke Peninsula, Eyre Peninsula and Adelaide metropolitan regions. I highlight that the committee managed to travel all the way from Port MacDonnell to Ceduna. There were at least three very well-organised tours to Eyre Peninsula, Yorke Peninsula, a South-East tour and the last one was the Adelaide regional beaches tour.

The committee held most of its hearings in Adelaide and was pleased to hold one regional hearing in Mount Gambier. The committee heard a great deal of evidence from regional and metropolitan stakeholders that state leadership in integrated coastal management was vital for the future of South Australia's coastal areas. South Australia's coastal areas are highly contested, with a number of agencies having jurisdiction over coastal geographic boundaries and responsibility for management distributed over state and local levels of government.

This fragmented approach to governing our coastal areas has led to a complex mosaic of plans, strategies and programs across government agencies and councils that incompletely cover coastal areas. Many times we heard from witnesses and local governments of a wheel of passing information around in a consultative process that delayed outcomes. We heard that it would move from local government to the EPA to the Coast Protection Board to the landscape boards and, at other times, the developers and community consultation. It took a long time to navigate through this process, and it was highlighted to us that it was not clear that everyone knew what their role was or their purpose, and it almost seemed like a lot of buck-passing at times. That is the evidence we heard.

Furthermore, there are gaps in leadership of strategic and statewide policy setting to control coastal development, manage coastal conservation priorities and mitigate impacts from climate change and sea level rise. Another point we heard was the fact that councils are trying to navigate their infrastructure, worried about climate change and potential sea level rise, with a lack of science. We noted and heard that the Coast Protection Board was working with Flinders University and local government agencies, local government councils, to find the best science to tell them about the effect that sea level rise, storm surge, storm directions and those sorts of things are having on infrastructure and our coastlines.

The committee met with and heard from many council representatives as it travelled throughout regional South Australia. Their passion for protecting coastal areas in their regions was very evident, but the committee noted with some dismay that councils were apportioning disproportionately large amounts of their budgets to protect coastal infrastructure and public access to beaches. This is clearly unsustainable for councils. One of the committee's recommendations is for the state government to commit to finding an equitable and sustainable long-term funding model for research and data collection and for the protection and management of our coastal assets across the state.

In our travels, we heard of a number of issues where population, development, sand dune erosion, beach encroachment—perhaps sea encroachment—onto infrastructure were causing a major problem for local council. A lot of the local councils said their issues stemmed from a $10,000 problem to perhaps a $100,000 problem. But I thought it was worth noting that in my own electorate of MacKillop, the Kingston District Council's problems extend into the millions of dollars.

It highlighted the big problems that the Kingston council faces on three fronts: a development at Cape Jaffa marina, which is underdeveloped and does not have enough rental and development there to sustain the marina and needs council money to keep open and operating; a stone wall infrastructure to protect roads, bikeways and houses behind the roads that have been eroded at what we call Pinks Beach; and what was the boat-launching facility at Kingston, just north of the jetty, which has been abandoned at this stage and is causing an immense number of problems because their jetty at the moment is nearly half as wet, or as dry with sand now, because of sand build-up behind a groyne that the boat-launching facilities used to use.

The committee also heard from regional councils of the urgent need for local data collection to help inform better decision-making. This is particularly the case for councils seeing an upswing in tourism due to the increase in backyard tourism as a direct effect of COVID-19 travel restrictions. Submitters were strongly supportive of amendments to the Coast Protection Act and keen to retain authorities such as the Coast Protection Board that could collaborate and lead on statewide strategic coastal issues.

Where submitters tended to differ was the authority the Coast Protection Board has in refusing development under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. Amendments to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act were outside the scope of this particular inquiry. However, the committee recommends that the state government reviews this once a sufficient amount of time has elapsed for the board's authority to be properly evaluated.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the people who took time to help the committee while it toured South Australia. In particular, I thank the mayors, chief executives and staff of the 18 regional councils the committee met with, and also representatives from the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board; the Presiding Member of the Coast Protection Board, Mr Jeff Tate; and Dr Murray Townsend from the Department for Environment and Water who accompanied the committee on all the regional visits. Their company was most welcome.

The conversations were very respectful. I know when a lot of the local councils saw Dr Murray Townsend turn up, and also Jeff Tate, the conversations were respectful; they were open, and we discussed all the issues and opportunities that this inquiry perhaps could lend itself to in the future. I also thank academics from Flinders University who accompanied the committee on its tour of the Adelaide metropolitan beaches.

I am also grateful to the community groups who spoke to the committee at Parnka Point, Lucky Bay and Black Point, and I thank all individuals, community groups and organisations who provided a submission or who gave evidence to this inquiry. Finally, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the parliamentary officers: Ms Joanne Fleer and research officer, Dr Merry Brown, for their assistance with organising the committee site visits, compiling this evidence and receiving this report.

With this inquiry, and the opportunities that may come in the future, when it was first noted and put out into the public arena there was almost an air of uncertainty. That is the nicest way to put it. Was this a witch-hunt, or trying find a scapegoat? Or was the inquiry actually saying that this act is 50 years old and is it still working? Certainly, I think that this inquiry has proved that it was the latter. It was no witch-hunt.

Certainly we found some gaping holes. We found some big issues, and the one that really came to light was hearing about caravan parks being washed into the sea and walkways being washed into the sea. We know that local governments have budgets of $1 million, $2 million and $3 million, but that the cost to repair and maintain this sort of infrastructure eats well and truly into their budgets, so we can see that some changes are required.

Another thing that was noted, and I hope that this is picked up, is the lack of science and data about sea level rise and also land level rise. It was noted on Yorke Peninsula that there are some towns still rising with the uplift of continental shelf movements such as on the edge of the Flinders Ranges. However, they may never suffer any sea level rise for the next 50 to 100 years—perhaps. The point is that the data is there, but that is not for me to quantify or even clarify. The point is that I can ask the question: where is the science to prove otherwise?

Talking about sea level rises and global warming and what they will mean, yes, there is a projection that by 2050 we could see a sea level rise of 10 centimetres, 20 centimetres and 30 centimetres. Lidar maps are used that talk about land height and sea level heights, and we see massive inundation along our coastlines and what that means. In all, I hope that this inquiry is seen by all levels of government—federal government, state governments and local governments—as well as the environment departments and the Coast Protection Board because we actually do need the best science possible to find the best solutions.

Another fact I would like to highlight, and it was noted and we see it on our coastlines, is what they call a soft remedial repair—moving sand from one end of the beach to the other. There is a place for it if it can be done effectively and efficiently. This is not a point of criticism, but what is not really given strong consideration from what we have heard are stronger and harder protections for our coastline.

We have seen some reefs being put out in the sea trying to stop storm surge and waves washing away beaches, and that has worked very well. However, these infrastructure builds out in the sea are very expensive and there are also usually consequences, and the science and the money do not seem to back up this idea. The easy answer that has been found at the moment is moving sand from one end of the beach to the other and watching it wash in the normal direction of wave movement, which is normally from the south to the north, and then they have to move it back again. This costs immense amounts of money and it is very much a soft long-term process of fixing.

We noted that groynes have been built along our beaches. Some of them are hard rock walls and some of them are sandbags. We noted that we have seen sandbags behind our beaches trying to preserve our dune system. We do know that the more we interfere and the more we touch, there are always consequences. This comes back to this point where the number one highlight I hope that we address by this inquiry is not only the funds that are required to look at and address these issues but the science.

We already have Flinders University engaged in some of these issues, but I think we need a greater amount of science. If we are serious about global warming, if we are serious about sea level rise, then we need to be serious about the implications and what they will mean for us as a state, as a community and as nation in general.

I note that the Hon. Mark Parnell was privileged to address an inquiry into sea level rise and coastal issues at Cairns, I believe. I think he was even going to note that this inquiry had taken place when he was speaking to this conference in Queensland. He did note that this was taking place. I hope that this is the start of a bigger picture about the coastline in general around Australia. Again, it comes back to how are we going to address it and modify it if sea level is going to rise.

One thing that was noted was that some land in the Netherlands/Holland is already below sea level. The science is out there and the infrastructure is out there. It is very expensive, but you can actually protect our infrastructure from the sea. What is really noted is that it has to be done well and it has to have the best science behind it. I think the science should come from our local bases. We do have universities, with environmental students coming through the system in our own state.

We can channel those resources into these areas and make it work, make it effective and do it in a way that the money is well spent. Sometimes with some sand movements that have been taking place, the community does not think it is money well spent. In all, I will finish up and move that this report be accepted. I thank everyone involved for what we found.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:15): I rise to support the noting of this, the sixth report of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, entitled an Inquiry into the Coast Protection Board and Coastal Legislation. I congratulate and compliment the committee on their work in relation to this, ably led by the member for MacKillop. I appreciated, as the member for Flinders, hosting them in Flinders and on Eyre Peninsula.

I think I am right in saying that I have more of South Australia's coastline than any other member. It extends all the way from the District Council of Franklin Harbour, south to Port Lincoln, around and up the West Coast to the Western Australian border. There are a lot of beautiful beaches and a lot of pristine coastline, but much of the coastline is being impacted upon, and has been for the last 150 years, by development since European settlement. That really is key, and I think the board needs to be cognisant of that fact going forward.

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee resolved to conduct an inquiry into the current status and potential for reform of the Coast Protection Act 1972. The act is now 50 years old. At the time of its instigation, South Australia was at the forefront of coastal legislation. However, as we have heard from the committee Chair, the act has remained virtually unchanged since its inception, so it is very timely now that we consider amending the act and the role of the Coast Protection Board.

South Australia has more than 5,000 kilometres of coastline in total. Of course, we are all familiar with the indented geography of South Australia. There are numerous peninsulas and gulfs and inlets and estuaries. As I have alluded to, the seat of Flinders is probably home to around 1,700 or 1,800 kilometres of that coastline of the 5,000, so it is a significant portion of the state's coastline and something I have great interest in. There was clear evidence received by the committee from visits to coastal areas, and their inquiry extended far beyond the metropolitan beaches where there is often and rightly a focus right down to Port MacDonnell and all the way out to the Far West, with the District Council of Ceduna.

South Australia's coasts are highly contested areas, with a number of agencies having jurisdiction over geographic boundaries. However, there are policy gaps for integrated management of coastal areas, such as leadership and coordination for addressing impacts from climate change and sea level rise. I would add to that the insurgence created by regular but not too frequent storm events. Of course, when they do hit the coastal regions of South Australia there can be significant damage.

The committee found overwhelming support to amend and modernise the act and that retaining a coastal-focused board and agency with relevant expertise and resourcing was important to lead future coastal management for the state. The committee also found that it was important to integrate coastal management through leadership, collaboration, alignment and other legislative frameworks and agencies who have shared responsibility for various aspects of coastal management, noting that these frameworks were developed after the original act commenced.

The committee heard that regional councils were allocating considerable portions of their annual budgets to simply maintain coastal infrastructure and environments. Many of our country councils that have a coastline coincide with relatively small ratepayer bases, and that is particularly so on Eyre Peninsula: small ratepayer bases and big obligations from council to try to protect and enhance their coastal environments.

The committee concluded that there was a greater need to support regional coastal councils for strategic policy setting and data collection, on-the-ground technical support and improved processes to streamline the fragmented agency approach to coastal conservation management and planning and development. Bear in mind that it is not all about protecting and conserving. We have to allow for future development. My belief is that we have to support landowners, whether they be private landowners with shacks or homes on the beach or sometimes farming properties abutting the coastline or coastal councils. We need to be able to support them in relation to their management planning and development.

The committee also heard that compliance has been and continues to be difficult to enforce in some regions and that communities and councils have expressed their frustration in trying to navigate where responsibility lies within planning and development processes and legislation. Stakeholders highlighted the need for a strategic and collaborative approach to research and local data collection to help inform decision-making and investing authority in the board to lead with best practice coastal development.

I note the member for MacKillop, as Chair, made mention of not only sea level rise but also the fact that, anecdotally at least, in some parts of the state we have a coastline and land terrain that is actually on the incline. Certainly, work needs to be done in relation to that. The rate of incline, I suspect, is not going to keep up with the rate of sea level rise, but it needs to be factored into the planning going forward.

Stakeholders also expressed and emphasised that the board could improve its relationship with the community by involving stakeholders in decision-making and making its processes more transparent. Isn't that always the way when boards are based in Adelaide? As we know, boards essentially are based in Adelaide. It is the state capital; it is the metropolitan hub of South Australia, but the perception of course is that decisions are made in an ivory tower, sometimes many hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away, with little consideration for the practical application and input at a local area.

Finally, there was some division amongst stakeholders about the level of authority vested in the board in accordance with the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. A number of stakeholders suggested it was currently appropriate, while others wanted the board's authority reduced. The committee considered that it is too late to make a judgement with regard to the board's authority and suggested that a review of the board's referral role take place after the implementation of a revised coastal legislation.

Ultimately, I thank the committee for their work. There were 11 recommendations made in the report. Ultimately, all related back to state government responsibility for coastal protection and the management of the coastal board. Bear in in mind that we all recognise the importance of South Australia's coasts; 90 per cent of South Australia's population lives on or near the coast, and that is not surprising given the continent we live in.

I thank the committee for visiting the electorate of Flinders and particularly taking the time to go out west to the District Council of Ceduna, where the council has been successful in procuring state government grants for coastal protection both at Ceduna and down at Smoky Bay, a smaller coastal community but one that is vitally important for holiday-makers and also the oyster industry. Smoky Bay bore the brunt of the storm way back in 2016, when the state famously was blacked out. It was that very same storm.

I would like to reiterate that I do not believe that as a state government we should necessarily preclude further development on our coastline. It is the jewel in the crown as far as I am concerned. European settlement has had an impact on the nature of the way our coastline works and its vulnerability, I suppose, to weather and climate events. We need to vest in our landowners, whether they be council or private landowners, the responsibility, the rights and the option to protect their properties rather than simply see them degrade and come to a point where they are no longer usable.

Finally, in the seconds remaining I would like to implore the state government—and I know this work is probably in hand—to really consider the future of our state's jetties. Jetties dot the coastline all the way around and were particularly important traffic routes in the early days of settlement. They have come to a point now where they are not used so much for that but certainly are important to small towns, coastal communities, not just for localised fishing fleets but also for tourism attraction.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (11:25): I rise to make a brief contribution as well and, in doing so, I would like to heartily congratulate the committee on launching this inquiry. As the member for MacKillop stated at the outset, I was lucky enough to be on the committee when this inquiry was launched. Having the great pleasure of representing the electorate of Narungga, it was particularly important to our part of the world.

There are a considerable number of kilometres of coastline along Yorke Peninsula and down into the Adelaide Plains and there are a large number of interactions with the Coast Protection Board as a direct result of that. It was particularly pleasing to be on the committee at the start of this inquiry, and I congratulate them on launching it. It was just a shame that I was not able to serve a more fulsome time on that committee while this inquiry was being conducted, but congratulations to the member for MacKillop and committee members on driving this inquiry.

I would also like to, in the same vein as the member for Flinders has done, congratulate and thank the committee for visiting Yorke Peninsula to investigate some of those interactions that we have had with the Coast Protection Board. There are instances up and down the peninsula of different experiences that different communities have had with the Coast Protection Board, and it was really pleasing to see that the committee took the time to come and visit and investigate most if not quite all of those instances and experiences up and down the peninsula.

I would like to touch on a few of them ever so briefly right now so that we can acknowledge in this house the tribulations and successes of the Coast Protection Board on Yorke Peninsula. The first one that I would like to make mention of is the Black Point community. A number of years ago—four, five, six years ago—they were successful in receiving a grant to redevelop the boatramp at Black Point, which is a particularly busy community, increasingly so, I believe. There are a large number of fishermen who go out from Black Point to try their luck and catch a number of whiting.

I believe the council led the charge to try to redevelop that boatramp to recognise the fact that it is an increasingly busy boatramp, and that a large number of boats are launching from it, and to make it a safer and easier to use boatramp. Unfortunately, at the time they did that, part of the plan included raising the ramp itself. Where it used to run basically along the same level as the beach, it now would run a metre or so above the level of the sand. I believe this raised concerns in the community at that time. They suggested to the Coast Protection Board that it would impede the sand flow and result in a build-up on one side and a shortage on the other.

According to the community there, they pleaded and begged that the boatramp not be raised to that height but, unfortunately, that is how it proceeded. Lo and behold, that is exactly what eventuated thereafter: they experienced, unfortunately on the community side of the boatramp, a rather significant shortage of sand and, on the other side, closer to the town of Ardrossan, there was an abundance of it. That boatramp did have the effect of interrupting the sand flow, unfortunately, and it caused a great deal of angst in the community.

Thankfully, throughout this term of government, we have been able to secure another grant with considerable help from the community itself. They have done an excellent job in raising funds and carting sand at their own cost to remedy the issue in the short term but all the while desperately trying to secure enough funding to fix the boatramp. Thankfully, during this term of government, we have been able to do so, and I can report to the house that there are works ongoing at Black Point at the moment to lower the level of the actual ramp to ensure that it does not impede the sand flow there.

That is an example of where it would have been nice to avoid the problem right from the get-go so that we would not have to do it twice. Hopefully, that was part of the feedback that both the committee and the Coast Protection Board took on board when they visited Yorke Peninsula and met with Bill Gill and representatives of the Black Point community.

Unfortunately, the Coast Protection Board and the committee did not have the opportunity to visit Balgowan. I have been out to the boatramp at Balgowan with Sam Johns, a local farmer and long-term family vacationer to Balgowan, wonderful community that it is, who despairs at the rock groyne that has been built out into the water at Balgowan ostensibly to protect the boatramp and the boats that are launching from there.

This is important because, again, it is a wonderful fishing area for a lot of recreational fishers, and a few commercial fishermen operate from that part of the world as well. Whilst I do not dispute the fact that there might have been a need for a rock groyne to be built to help protect the boat-launching facility, according to Sam Johns, it has had the effect of interrupting the sand flow and causing the beautiful beach to now experience a shortage of sand.

Sam's son showed me photos of what the beach used to look like with cars down on it and people enjoying the beach and whatnot. Unfortunately, now it is basically a rock bed with very little sand on it. It is impossible to get a car down through the rocks. Unfortunately, it precludes any use or enjoyment of that beach at Balgowan as well. I know that Sam and the Balgowan Progress Association are pretty keen to see that rock groyne either removed or shortened so that hopefully the sand returns to that beach and allows them to enjoy it with their kids, just as they did with their parents at one time. I will continue to work for the Balgowan community on that front.

The final matter that I would like to draw to the attention of this house is an area which the committee did have the opportunity to visit. Around near Point Turton, a bit south of that, a significant rock wall has been installed to prevent erosion of what is essentially a cliff face along that way. A number of houses have been built looking out over the water. As the tides continue to lap away at the cliffs, it has come closer and closer to the houses until it became a real concern. Thankfully, the council have managed to find the means to implement a significant rock wall there to prevent that erosion from happening further. That is another success story at Black Point and down near Point Turton as well, and hopefully we can get one at Balgowan.

The final point I would like to make in the time I have left is that high on my priority list as the member for Narungga—and if I am lucky enough to be re-elected will be continue to be high on my priority list—is an improved boatramp at Marion Bay. Marion Bay is a terrific tourist destination. It is one of the most beautiful, untouched beaches on the peninsula. Unfortunately, the boatramp is subject to local knowledge. I am led to believe that tourists visiting there, who do not appreciate the intricacies of the local ramp, can sometimes come unstuck with different sea levels and tides and waves and that sort of thing. It is a high priority of mine to deliver an improved boatramp at Marion Bay.

However, before that time, as the local member I would need assurance from the Coast Protection Board that the beach will not be impacted by any structure or product that is put there to protect the boats being launched. At the moment, as it stands with the various interactions around the electorate of Narungga, I would be concerned that an interrupted sand flow would have a disastrous impact on that beach, which we desperately do not need at Marion Bay. That is the main drawcard for people to go and visit. Any effect that would interrupt sand flow or decrease the suitability of the beach would be undesirable, to say the least.

I would like to take the opportunity in this place to reassure members of the Marion Bay community that it is a high priority of mine to try to find an improved boatramp outcome so that they continue to attract tourists down there and the locals can continue to operate their recreational fishing vessels safely. I would need some reassurance from the Coast Protection Board that it will not impact the beach at Marion Bay, which is such a drawcard for the local tourist economy.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:33): I rise to speak on the sixth report of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee inquiry into the Coast Protection Board and coastal legislation. I just want to make a few brief comments on some of the commentary that people have brought to my attention over the years in regard to management of coastal land. A lot of it is inland from direct contact with the coast but comes into the remit of the Coast Protection Board. This can involve many hundreds of hectares right across the state. It could run into the thousands of hectares.

I refer to the lengthy impact on some of this land as you come inland, further off the coast, and the management of that by property owners. What I am talking about here in the main is farmland. There has been angst presented to me on how it is managed. Obviously the farmers want the right outcomes and want to be able to farm this land appropriately but, in many of the cases that have been put to me, there have been a lot of restrictions put on them that in some ways seem overbearing.

This act has not been updated in 50 years, and I would like to see that we get the right outcome in the negotiations in drawing up a bill for an act in regard to coastal protection and what needs to happen there, that we get an outcome where landholders get the appropriate input into new legislation so that not only can the land be operated as farmland but also we make sure we have the right outcomes in the longer term for the sustainability of that land.

It does not matter where any farmer is, with the technology we have today—glyphosate in farming, one-pass farming with cultivators putting in crops—people are very aware of sustainable practices and how to manage their properties, especially as time goes on. With global positioning system (GPS) management on many thousands of tractors and harvesting equipment in this state alone, you really get accuracy in managing land and putting in crops.

You can manage it down to a mere couple of centimetres. If you are towing an air seeder to place the seed, you can get so accurate that you can sow the seed right next to the last row from the year before so that as the plants grow they can capitalise on the fertiliser that was put down the previous year. That goes on and on and on, and it assists with production and also with the sustainability of that land.

I would like to think a real look can be had—if and when legislation is drawn up, as it should be—at the new practices of farming that are very sustainable, a lot more sustainable than going over your country eight to 12 times, over various passes, as far as tillage is concerned. I also note there are a lot of new advances in agriculture with managing stock.

We are hearing about virtual fencing coming on board and being trialled, using electronics and electronic tags on animals and that kind of thing. Over the years before that, we have also seen revolutionary technologies come on board, such as electric fencing for strip grazing so that you can maximise a strip of land in a paddock or pasture. It is pretty easy: roll up the tape, move the stock over a bit and get full production out of that land.

That is not to say that people who have set fencing—and, in the main, you would see this in most properties around the state—are not very aware of pasture management and getting it right to get the right outcomes, especially in these times when agriculture is on a high. Grain prices are high at the moment and stock is high. Some people get more rain than others. Obviously in a year like this it is pretty tough in some areas, but some people have already taken the crops off and are getting a reasonable result. But that is farming.

As I indicated earlier in this contribution, in moving this legislation forward I would just like to think that landholders—and I am talking about agricultural landholders here, in the main—get the appropriate input and the right to consult appropriately so that we get that right balance between agricultural production and coastal protection.

On top of that, we also need to be aware of coastal development and, as the member for MacKillop indicated, make sure that we use the right science to work out what development we can have on the coast, where and in the right locations. We have to have appropriate science behind it so that we get the right balance with development. As long as we have been on this earth, there has always been development and, yes, we do have to get it right.

It is not dissimilar to a recent application for a cable ski park at Murray Bridge, which did face some hurdles with the council Development Assessment Panel. It should not have, but that is another story. I just want to commend Adam Bruce for the work he has done so far in moving that forward and going for development approval soon. A similar scenario is where there will be development on the River Murray flats right under the old bridge at Murray Bridge, which we are putting $36 million into restabilising and bringing up to standard so that it can operate for many decades to come.

The development Adam is proposing to build there is cable skiing with five towers, and it will be a world-class tourism development in Murray Bridge. Any buildings built on that flood zone, which is obviously the river flats where cattle have grazed all my life, have to be buildings that, if there is a repeat of the 1956 flood, can handle that. Obviously any sheds or structures built on that land will have to have openings at each end, and the cable towers for the skiing and wake boarding that will happen there in the future will be fine.

I guess that is just an example of utilising the river flats, but it does bring up a similar conversation in regard to coastal management where you can make development work; you just have to be insightful of how it is done and manage with science all the potential outcomes. We need to make sure that we can develop appropriately and that if someone has something a bit entrepreneurial or a bit different, a bit out of the box, we work with them so that we can get that appropriate development for the betterment of all.

As I indicated earlier in my contribution on the coastal protection changes to the act later on in the next parliament, I think it is absolutely essential to get it right for everyone involved, especially for those in the agricultural sector.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (11:43): I would like to briefly make a contribution to the Inquiry into the Coast Protection Board and Coastal Legislation and thank all members under the stewardship of the member for MacKillop. At various times, other contributions were made from members who came in during the course of that.

In particular, as the Minister for Local Government and Planning I wish to say that I will of course consider carefully any recommendation or request for state government to undertake the development of a framework in relation to the culmination of powers and functions of the board within the envelope of the Planning and Development Infrastructure Act 2016 and also, following the implementation of an amended act, to further seek the State Planning Commission's collaboration to commit to a cross-agency review of a number of matters.

Whilst those matters are under my direct responsibility as the minister, and we will look at those matters very carefully, a number of other recommendations are essentially under the direct responsibility—as the Coast Protection Act 1972 is—of the Minister for Environment. I am sure he will be looking with interest at the recommendations made.

I am aware that Ms Helen Dyer, the Chair of the State Planning Commission, provided evidence to this committee. I have appreciated her service in relation not only to the commission but also to presenting to the committee and providing her evidence. Furthermore, there is a group that does not appear to have given evidence to this committee, but they have recently requested to meet with me and the Planning Commission to discuss further how there would be an interaction in relation to future coastal protection—I put that in general terms—under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act.

Obviously, if there are any weaknesses in relation to legislation, or there is a need for reform as a result of a number of other recommendations presented for the restructure and amendments to the Coast Protection Act, then of course they will need to be consequential to be dealt with as well. I thank the members for their report and we will certainly have a look at those matters. I just make one observation: I note that there had not been a site visit to Kangaroo Island. It does have quite a bit of coastline, which I understand is under the jurisdiction of the Coast Protection Act.

There are a number of parliamentary committees that regularly visit Kangaroo Island, so I am sure they would have been identified for the benefit of those to be informed for the purposes of assisting in this report as well and the consideration of the matters that have been raised. It seems that the district council of Kangaroo Island has not presented a submission. One thing I think that probably needs to be done is to make some inquiries as to whether they have been invited to make a contribution, if they have not. It seems they are not on the witness list either.

In conclusion, I indicate that the Law Society of South Australia is being asked to undertake some assistance work by providing a scheme—I may be confusing that with another committee. But the Law Society certainly made a submission as well. Again, as I said, we will look at all those matters in detail and I thank members for their consideration.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Bedford): Before I call the member for MacKillop, I ask the Attorney: is there anything in here for cuttlefish?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not that I have seen so far.

Motion carried.