Coastal Infrastructure

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (14:19): My question is to the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water. Is the minister content with the environmental approvals for coastal infrastructure like boat ramps? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Mr ELLIS: To the credit of the Yorke Peninsula Council they have redone the Marion Bay boat ramp, which was long overdue for a renovation. Despite passing all the environmental approvals, the ramp is constantly full of seaweed and is considered by locals to be basically unusable. There have been other projects that have left those ramps unusable, like Black Point for example, and it has left us wondering whether the approvals are appropriate and doing what they are meant to.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (14:20): I appreciate the question and the concern for the local community that it expresses. If I can just explain to the chamber the way in which the approval decisions are made for most coastal works, such as a boat ramp.

The vast majority of them are considered by council as the approving authority, so in the Marion Bay case the council was the one that decided yes or no. But what happens is that it goes out to the Coast Protection Board for advice, and unless it is a major project, or one of the other versions of a major project under the Planning and Development Act, the Coast Protection Board has the power of direction. It can say, 'Do not do this.' Most times it does not say, 'Do not do this.' Most times it will say either, 'That work is fine,' or 'That work is fine, but here are some conditions that we think ought to be put on any approvals, and be aware that if you approve this there may be challenges.' With Marion Bay, to the best of my knowledge, that's the path that was taken.

It is an area that will have a lot of seagrass wrack movement and the council was informed, as part of the advice given by the Coast Protection Board, that it was likely that there would be a problem with seagrass wrack, that there would be a need to manage that, that there ought to be a management plan and some advice given about what that would look like, and then with that clarity it would in fact be for the council to make a decision whether it wanted to proceed or not.

There have been other decisions along the coastline. There was one for Cape Jaffa several years ago where that had a major project status which meant that the Coast Protection Board did not have the power of direction, it only had the capacity to advise. It advised against. It said that this is likely to make the management of coastal processes very difficult. And, of course, it went ahead anyway where subsequently it has been demonstrated to have been a very difficult project with sand movement constantly and a real burden of cost for the Kingston District Council.

So even in the instance where the board is not able to direct, it is capable of giving advice and saying, 'Do not do this.' As I say, for most developments it is most likely to say, 'Recognise the risks that you have and choose if you are capable of managing them.' As the member points out, that has not been as effective as the locals would like it to be with Marion Bay, and the council, I believe, is well aware of that feedback, but it is up to them. It is clearly legally their responsibility and it was clearly, in approval terms, their decision. Despite knowing that seagrass wrack is likely to be a challenge they decided to proceed in any case.