Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2025.)

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (17:00): I rise today to obviously support the Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025. Coming from the seat of Giles, I have an interest in harbours and ports; in fact, it is a longstanding interest in harbours and ports, and not just the ones in my electorate but the various proposals at different times around Spencer Gulf and the good sense—or the lack of good sense—when it comes to some of those proposals.

There is a series of ports directly within my electorate. Obviously, there is the port of Whyalla, which is made up of two elements. One is Outer Harbour, which is essentially a jetty that was commissioned in 1968 to fulfil an iron pellet order for the Japanese at the time, and that jetty has gone on to operate up until today. Of course, it was built in conjunction at the time with the pellet plant at Whyalla, which has also found a life beyond those original Japanese orders.

There is also the Inner Harbour at Whyalla. That is largely an export harbour in terms of tonnages, but it also imports product. At the moment out of Inner Harbour in Whyalla we export copper concentrate; that will come to an end in the not too distant future with some of the changes that are occurring with BHP and Carrapateena, but at the moment we do export the copper concentrate from Carrapateena. We also, of course, export iron ore from the Inner Harbour and, indeed, from the Outer Harbour as well.

The harbour also imports a number of products that are essential for the functioning of the steelworks. We import coking coal; we no longer make that ourselves, so we have to bring in the coking coal. We used to import the metallurgical coal to turn into coking coal. We also import dolomite and a number of other materials used as flux in the ironmaking process.

Not far away from Whyalla, we also have Port Bonython, which was commissioned back in 1982. Port Bonython exports hydrocarbons and imports diesel to a diesel storage facility. The jetty at Port Bonython is owned by the state and is leased to Santos. Over recent years there has been a lot of work and refurbishment on that jetty. The Weatherill government committed over $30 million to maintenance on that jetty, and indeed the Marshall government also committed $30 million or thereabouts to the work that needed to be done at that particular jetty.

When it comes to Port Bonython and the port at Whyalla, these changes do not capture those ports. They have been in place for a long period of time. In the case of the port at Whyalla, they are captured by the indenture. Obviously, over recent months there have been some issues surrounding the port at Whyalla. That has now all been resolved in a way that serves the public interest, the interests of this state. So Whyalla and Port Bonython are not captured.

It might be interesting to see what happens in Port Augusta possibly in the not too distant future and make some assumptions about whether they do export the iron ore from the north of the state by barge down to Whyalla. I have some particular views about that, when it comes to creating critical mass and economies of scale in this state, but I will not go into those particular views today. In my electorate, the ports have been incredibly important for the economic wellbeing of the region and they make a very significant contribution to the state's economic wellbeing.

There are several purposes of the bill, including providing the minister with the powers to publish harbour rules to assist in the smooth operation of harbours around South Australia. As is indicated, or implied, whatever happens will be publicly available. It is going to be on the web, so there is a lot of transparency about what is to be done. The bill will provide the minister with powers to publish a safety direction to be used in situations with heightened safety risks that do not rise to the level of an emergency. At the moment, those powers do not exist. When it comes to full-on emergencies, the minister does have power, the state does have power, but it may be a whole raft of lesser issues that will need to be addressed, and these changes will allow that to happen.

The bill will clarify the minister's powers regarding dealings with Rex, and there are some additional powers that are going to be conferred. At times, Rex can cause hazards and other issues when it comes to the marine environment. This amendment bill will give the minister the power to intervene, to do what is necessary in relation to Rex and to recover the costs. There will be a whole process around that, so it is not just a case of doing something, imposing costs; there will be a process.

The bill will clarify issues regarding the vesting of maritime property in the minister. There is a range of ports and harbours in South Australia that are privately owned. This is not looking to diminish the rights that come with that. There is also the capacity to ensure safety and the smooth operation of the harbours and ports in South Australia.

Miscellaneous changes include updating superseded legislation references and deleting expiation fees, which are to be moved to regulations. Sometimes, we have hangover from the distant past, and one thing does come to mind. I have raised this with the minister's office, and they were very helpful. The port of Port Augusta is still a gazetted channel. There have not been any ships or any larger vessels traversing up to Port Augusta for many years. When I spoke to some waterside workers their recall was that the last vessel of any bulk that went up to Port Augusta was back in 1972.

Port Augusta, a long time before Whyalla and other places, used to be a very vibrant port. If people get an opportunity, when you are up in Port Augusta, have a look at some of the old photos, and the number of sailing ships that traversed the gulf to reach Port Augusta to import stuff and export predominantly grain from that area. It was a very prolific port. It had multiple jetties and serious wharves. The wharf in Port Augusta has now been closed for many years and I think one of the good things that happened this year was an announcement on the part of the federal government and the state government to fund the refurbishment of the wharf and re-open it to the public. That is a real plus.

Of the multiple jetties that used to be in Port Augusta, only one is left, and that is on the western side which currently does not have community access, and the community in Port Augusta is very keen to see that jetty reinstated on the western side. This bill is just tidying up a number of things that needed to be tidied up, to lead to the smoother operation of ports and harbours in South Australia.

A reasonable amount of it will have to do with perhaps the member for Hammond's electorate rather than mine, given the nature of the existing ports in my electorate. It might be to do with ferries, and there might be issues when it comes to councils and the state and the private operators when it comes to the operation of ferries in our state, so there will be some assistance in that area to make things somewhat smoother.

There is a recognition in the bill that not all ports and harbours are the same, so there is that need for a tailored response. That is something that has been flagged in this legislation. They are things to do with a minimum size for vessels, and reporting of incidents and hazards. The priority and safety of movement of vessels within the harbour are all, in way or the other, captured by this particular bill. One of the other things that the bill introduces is maximum penalties when there have been breaches. The maximum penalty will now be $10,000, so that has been a change as well.

As I said, this bill is pretty straightforward. I do not think there is going to be anything deeply controversial about it. I look forward to what the member for Hammond has to say, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:12): I note that I am the lead speaker on this legislation but I do not think I will need to bend the dial on the clock too far. I am here to speak to the Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025. The bill was introduced in this place on 18 June 2025 by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and it provides amendments to the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993.

Key changes under the bill include harbour rules such as empowering the minister to issue harbour-specific rules via Gazette and publish online and covering permitted activities—for example, vessel size limits, incident reporting, and priority zones, with noncompliance carrying penalties of up to $10,000, as we have already heard. These rules override local council bylaws but require prior consultation with adjacent councils, likely initially used at ferry hubs, like the new hubs that are being completed at Penneshaw and Cape Jervis.

One of the other key changes under this legislation is safety directions, which enables the minister to impose temporary, gazetted safety directions such as speed limits, swimming restrictions or access closures where there is elevated but non-emergency risk—e.g. whether there are some events on or there is marine remediation happening on site. Noncompliance again is penalised similarly at $10,000 and also overrides council bylaws.

At (3), we have the inclusion of privately owned land or waters within the harbour or port declarations. What this does is clarifies the legal basis for declaring a harbour or port that includes private land or waters, provided the private owner agrees, separate from land tenure concerns.

Issue (4) is enhanced powers on wreck clearance. This confirms the minister or port operator may remove, destroy, or sink wrecks that are hazards if the owner does not comply with removal notices and recover costs from that owner as a debt. It extends the minister's ability to act unilaterally if the owner is untraceable. The wreck may be historically significant, so consultation with the minister under the Historic Shipwrecks Act is required first. Penalties under this part of the legislation for noncompliance doubled from $5,000 to $10,000.

At (5), there are some exclusions from vesting of maritime property. It clarifies that privately owned wharves, jetties, docks or related structures built after 24 October 1994 do not automatically vest in the minister.

At (6), there are administrative and technical updates involved in the legislation. It adjusts annual report timelines 12 days from six. It updates delegation powers, removes outdated references and moves expiation fees into regulations for flexibility. It also amends offence section concerning unsafe vessels.

There is a little bit further discussion around the legislation. Safety directions can only currently be imposed under an emergency declaration. This will allow the minister to impose temporary safety directions at any time by publishing in the Gazette. Other amendments are tidying up the legislation. Certainly, we will be asking some questions in committee just for some clarification. We consulted with SeaLink and the Local Government Association and I would like to thank the minister's staff and the department staff for giving me a briefing as well. We will just be seeking a little bit of clarification.

Obviously, with a state that is surrounded by water we export a lot of products, we import a lot of products, notwithstanding the amount of grain, the millions of tonnes of grain that get exported, especially when we do not have a drought year like last year and hopefully this year it will step up with a bit more rain—we need quite a bit more rain—and they are vital to the stability of the state, the growth of the state, whether we are exporting product or importing product.

With that short contribution, we will be supporting the bill but we will seek some clarification during the committee stage.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:18): I would like to make a contribution to the Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. As the member for Hammond has just said he is looking for some clarification. He has had a briefing from the minister's office, which is good. I perhaps should have been onto it a little bit earlier and perhaps tagged along just to have a better understanding, but I will make my contribution now and potentially if there are any answers to my questions that would be greatly appreciated.

As far as the navigation side of it goes, I have had some concerns for quite some time now, particularly in relation to the River Murray. There have been a few issues along the way and they have been growing over a long period of time and it has been exacerbated by the most recent floods, the 2022-23 flood event. That was probably the most significant flood since 1956.

Of course, it did supersede the 1930s flood. What we saw back then really did give locals a much better understanding of the vulnerabilities of the river system, what it means when floodwaters come down, how the river behaves, how it changes shape and how it changes its course in some instances.

Several concerned boat captains have come to me with concerns around Settlers Bend, which is between Berri and Renmark. It has been a shallow passage of water for quite some time, but it has now got to the point where it is almost unnavigable and boats are not able to get through. One example is that bigger riverboats that are heading downstream from Renmark to Berri to be serviced, to hit the slip, are going right over to one side of the river and are not able to get through. I have been down there to witness the chainsaws out. They are cutting trees to be able to get close enough to the bank to be able to make their way through.

We are now seeing new cuttings being formed, almost like a relief valve, and those cuttings are a bypass of the main channel. Where we have seen a dogleg in the river there is now a passage straight through, so the river's navigable channel is changing shape. I can see it from where I live and I have seen many, many people walk up over the flood plain to my home looking for assistance because they are stranded high and dry. We are seeing a number of areas of the river starting to silt up.

Right below where I live, we now have huge sandbars and they are magnificent. They are really, really pretty—white sand on the corner of a riverbend—and that is something that was never there before. It was once upon a time river red gums and grey clay, and what we are seeing now are large deposits of white river sand. That just typifies where the river comes and goes when it comes in its wave. It is flexing its muscle, you might say, and all of a sudden it will drop a lot of silt and a lot of river sand.

As I said, most of the river is less than a metre deep at Settlers Bend, just to give you an understanding. Where the cuttings are being formed, constituents have been there with their fishing boats. They go through and they are using their sounders, and they say it is up to five metres deep. So I think that gives a pretty clear indication of how vague the river channel is, particularly after a natural event.

As I said, the operators of the P.S. Industry have contacted me, and it is a great piece of Riverland history. It is a boat that was commissioned in 1911 and it has been kept alive to this day by volunteers. But, as I said, they are also quite concerned that the navigable passage is becoming almost unachievable. What I really worry about is that if that continues to happen it will put one of the shining lights in the local economy at risk, and that would be tourism.

The houseboat tourism sector is very, very reliant on a clear river passage so that when people come up from the city, when people come from interstate or overseas, they can have a safe journey and not have to worry or have to call out when they get stuck on sandbars and when they get stuck on the bottom.

It can also cause a lot of damage to what now are very expensive houseboats. Operators are going out there and they are investing $1 million, $2 million, $3 million to $5 million in a houseboat. They hand it over to the people hiring it and they hope in good faith that it comes back in one piece. It is very dangerous whenever there is a bit of flow in the river—houseboats will come back with windows missing and all sorts of events have happened.

What I would really like to understand and learn a little bit more about is: who is actually responsible for the navigable channel in the river? I have written to the minister's office and I have written to the Department for Environment and Water. There always seems to be a little bit of AFL, a bit of handballing: 'No, it's not our responsibility'. It goes backwards and forwards. It is a concern what that would mean.

It might be that we would resort to some of the old-day techniques where we put a groyne in to scour a section of the river so that it naturally scours and does not have to be dredged. I cannot imagine that a government would put a dredge up the river at great expense when we could get in early and look at the opportunities of whether a groyne would work or whether we need to have safety buoys and keep people out of harm's way, particularly in the navigable channel.

It is about safety and giving those businesses the opportunity to make their way safely downriver to Berri, where we have the government slipway. If that is to be deemed unnavigable, or vessels are not able to pass through Settlers Bend, that might open up an opportunity for another private investor to put a slip further upriver. But what I do see is that we have great opportunity on the river. Our natural environment offers a great holiday experience and it all needs to be buoyed by a service sector, and that service sector would have to have a navigable passage.

One other area is the 421-mile mark at Warrakoo. Reportedly, the water is only 300 millimetres deep at the channel, so if emergency work had to be carried out on Lock 6, Lock 8 or Lock 9 the repair vessels would not be able to reach them—they just could not get through. It is a red flag at the moment.

People are leaving their movement through the river. At the moment, the way that the river is managed is by pulsing water down the river. People have to wait until there is a pulse of water coming down the river and they will ride that wave. The pulse might only be 150 millimetres to 200 millimetres of water, but it does give the opportunity for some of those maintenance vessels to make their way down—as it would the MV Maratala. This is a government-owned river vessel that would also be stranded if it had to pass. I just put that on the record.

I have to say that these channels are used daily by many vessels, particularly the houseboats and some maintenance boats. We are starting to see a number of river cruises heading down, and a lot of them are high-end tourism experiences where they make their way down from Mildura or further afield and come down the river. At the moment, they really have to stay at Renmark because they cannot get past Settlers Bend.

If there is an opportunity to go past Settlers Bend, I do not see any other issues until you get down to Lock 1 at Blanchetown, where the Murray Princess docks pretty regularly. I think it is one of the most magnificent riverboats anywhere in the country. The opportunity for tourists to hop on that beautiful boat and experience those river cruises will be put at risk if we do not see some maintenance and make sure that the vital trade within tourism in the Riverland and the Lower Murray is maintained and looked after.

The separation of towns would also be a disconnect and would potentially hurt local businesses and hurt the local economy, and I want to make sure that we have not only a clear understanding that marine safety is absolutely paramount but that also we understand who is responsible for that navigable passage. I have not had anyone who has actually come back to me and said, 'Yes, I am responsible.' At the moment everyone is telling me, 'No, I'm not.' Until I can hear someone who will take responsibility, this will be an issue that will continue to get handballed around.

I will not bleat on about our volunteer base; it is getting older. Trying to get big boats, big riverboats, houseboats, holiday-makers off a lot of these sandbars, out of these impassable channels, seems to be becoming more regular, and I am sure that if we are going to rely on cuttings and water flows through some of the floodplain that is going to complicate the way that the river is managed and operated.

To all who are part of this conversation here today, part of this bill—and I am very happy to see that the minister is here because I have genuine concerns, and I am sure he would too, that we need to make sure that the maintenance is upheld and we do have a navigable channel.

So, I think I would like to sit in and listen to the member for Hammond ask the questions in committee, but what I must say is that I think we need to celebrate some of the beautiful waterways, whether it be marine or whether it be our freshwater environment we have here in South Australia and to make sure that all of these waterways are maintained and kept navigable with safety held as a paramount concern. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (17:32): I want to thank the members and my staff for their contributions on the bill to date. These are important reforms. I note the questions and the concerns the member for Chaffey has, and the concerns and questions that the member for Hammond has, and I look forward to the committee stage where, hopefully, I can answer their questions. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PEDERICK: Notwithstanding the discussion around the River Murray, what effect does this legislation have on facilities on the River Murray, including ferries and boating, because obviously that is covered by the current Harbors and Navigation Act?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The harbour rules apply to harbours, but the safety declarations will apply to the operations of the Murray. I think it is a good modern reform that will allow us to make instructions on the world's best practice for safety. I am not quite sure where the member is going with this, but I am happy to flesh it out and he can ask me a more direct question about what he thinks the implications are. Are you are talking about houseboats? Are you talking about tourism? Are you talking about whether harbour rules will apply to navigation on the river? I am not quite sure what you meant.

Mr PEDERICK: For clarification, it could be all of the above, minister. When I had the briefing, it appeared to me that it would not have a huge effect, obviously, in regard to the River Murray because it is basically harbour legislation. I guess the issue is, as the member for Chaffey raised, does it have any effect on the navigable path of the River Murray? Does it affect ferry operations? As you said, with the safety aspect, that will affect events, whether it is rowing events or other events with other classes of boats.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If I can take a step back, it is a freshen up of the regulatory framework that governs harbours and navigation, right? So it allows me to insert into the act the ability to create safety directions, which I would have thought most people would think makes a bit of sense. It creates capacity for the minister to publish safety directions in the Government Gazette, to either set a temporary restriction concerning specific areas within a jurisdiction.

It could be to manage a heightened safety risk, limit vessels and people's access to certain areas when remedial work is being undertaken or restricting access to a waterway area immediately adjacent to a bridge that is undergoing repair. It gives you clarifications to provisions concerning the divesting of property and the minister setting out that harbours and ports may be declared in areas that are wholly or partly in private ownership. It is just for the good order of maintenance and running of the river.

I suppose, on the question you asked about a rowing contest, I could give a safety direction if there is an approved event that a certain vessel not flow through that area while that event is on, I am guessing. It gives us the ability to set rules to govern the way navigation occurs for certain events and types that we did not have previously.

Mr PEDERICK: As further clarification, does that mean that you may, for instance, put in a temporary four-knot zone, whether it is for repairs to ferries or some other land-based infrastructure or an event?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes.

Mr PEDERICK: Because there are indentures involved with Port Bonython and Whyalla, does this have effect obviously with the multiple grain ports around the state?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No. The advice I have is that those ports that are indentured are governed by their indenture process. Whyalla is excluded—they are governed by their indenture acts—as is Port Bonython. They are the two that I think are governed by indenture acts. Indentures also refer to legislation, but the advice I have is that these are governed by their indentures so it has no impact on them.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mr WHETSTONE: I refer to clause 6—Care, control and management of property. As I said in my contribution, what department is responsible for the navigable pathway or the passage of the main channel?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Department for Environment and Water.

Mr WHETSTONE: Also, vessels that are abandoned, whether it be marine or a river corridor, are you able to give me an understanding? As an example, an abandoned houseboat that has been pushed up on the bank, tied up to a tree, and gone—that is happening more and more regularly now, particularly with the cost of mooring fees, particularly with the cost of maintenance. We are seeing now, particularly upriver between Lock 5 and Lock 6, 30 or 40 houseboats that have been abandoned. No-one seems to take responsibility for them. I am just wondering whether you can give me an understanding of what the process might be and who would be the go-to to have those abandoned vessels addressed?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Under section 25 of the act, I already have the power to require the owner of any wreck within the jurisdiction to remove that wreck. A port operator may also require the owner of a wreck within a port to remove the wreck. Either the minister or the port operator may already remove a wreck if a person fails to comply with a notice to remove the wreck and may seek to recover the costs of doing so from the person as a debt.

The term 'wreck' in legislation is defined as including an abandoned vessel. Wrecks are ordinarily considered to be a vessel or part of a vessel that is derelict, stranded, sunk or abandoned or that has foundered, including any part of a vessel that has become abandoned, sunk or adrift at sea. The amendment makes it clear that these powers of removal extend to sinking, destroying or disposing of a wreck. Given that the wreck in these circumstances is likely to be in extremely poor condition, the efforts on behalf of the minister to remove it may result in it being destroyed or sunk.

The changes also enable a port operator to take these steps with the approval of the minister. Without the powers, the government would be hampered in acting and the wrecks' presence may be creating a safety hazard. The bill amendments insert 25(6) into the section that covers the circumstances where a wreck within a jurisdiction has no owner or an owner cannot be found, despite taking reasonable steps to identify them or locate them to ensure that the minister is still able to act.

The amendments also make clear that the minister must consult with the minister responsible for the administration of historic shipwrecks—I doubt there would be any of those in the River Murray but there might be—with the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water prior to acting and where the minister is of the opinion that a particular wreck is of historic significance.

We are increasing the penalties from $5,000 to $10,000 for failing to comply with a notice under section 25 of the act to reflect the passage of time on the seriousness of the offence. The amendments also clarify that the minister is not liable to pay any damages or compensation for taking steps under the section. It is consistent with other provisions of the act, such as 89, that there be no liability regarding the operation of navigational aids.

What I do not want to have happen is for people to think they could create some shell, buy a houseboat, run it, when it gets to the end of life not repair it and abandon it, therefore it is the taxpayers' responsibility to clean it up. So what we are attempting to do is try to unlock that, to be able to fine ownership and say, 'This is your responsibility. By the way, here is a $10,000 fine for leaving it there and you are liable for its removal.' So we are trying to give ourselves the powers to go away and do exactly what I think is concerning you. The question for us is making sure we can find real people who are attached to the boats.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, on that issue again, another example might be that a vessel has been abandoned, not registered and is also being squatted on. We have a number of vessels where people who are homeless, if you like, have found a houseboat abandoned, squat on it, use the toilets and bathrooms, but it never moves and so that greywater or blackwater system is venting directly into the river. Is that a responsibility of your department or does that get handed over to the EPA?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That sounds more like a civil police matter than a departmental matter. There are laws governing squatting. I would imagine that if someone is illegally occupying a premises, that is a matter for South Australia Police, so they should be dealing with that. If they are illegally allowing pollutants into the water, there are penalties against that.

We are not trying to grab every problem and bring it into the Harbors and Navigation Act and say, 'Alright, we'll deal with all of it.' We do not have the resources for that. Police do their job; we will do ours. There is never going to be one agency to govern all of this. It is going to require a multi-agency response if you have things like the hypothetical scenario or real scenario that you are talking about. I hope that gives you a framework on how we want to operate this, but no, it would not be DIT's job to go and remove squatters and then deal with that. That would be a police or a civil matter.

Mr WHETSTONE: It is a little bit more commentary. Police have been called to situations like this and they are claiming there is nothing they can do. Again, it is a little bit of not having an understanding, whether it is through local government or people coming to my office. No-one wants to really grab the bull by the horns and say, 'Okay, we'll do this.' The police have said, 'We can't do anything about it.' DEW have said, 'We can't legally enforce removal of a boat, even though it's not registered.' So it really does leave a sandwich on the riverbank that no-one really wants to claim responsibility for.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a wicked problem, but I suspect what we can do now with the changes in the act, if the parliament agrees to them, is declare a vessel a wreck or a hazard and then begin processes to remove it. If there are obstacles in the way that need other agency involvement, we can trigger that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 and 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Mr WHETSTONE: I have had a number of instances where I have had to call on your department—and, again, it is a grey area. Say, for instance, we have a fallen tree in the river and it creates a safety hazard for speedboats, jetskis and people using maritime equipment in the river, who is responsible for submerged trees, or a vessel that has floated out and sunk and is not visible but is creating a safety hazard?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Ultimately, we would take action if a tree blocked the river: we would put safety buoys in, we would call council to remove the tree, we would coordinate a multi-agency response. I suppose in today's world we all want one person who can be responsible for all this. The truth is—as you would know as a former minister—that it is never one person who is solely responsible. It is a multi-agency response. If there is a fire at corrections, corrections are not responsible for putting out the fire, the MFS are.

There is always going to be a multi-agency response to these types of things, so we try to coordinate it. We might be called in by the council to put in safety buoys and declare a hazard, or it might be us coming in and calling the council to remove a tree, but it is never left to one agency's sole discretion about what occurs. It should be a multi-agency response and that is the best framework, I think, going forward.

I think what we are getting to is the point that you were talking about in your remarks: who is responsible for an unnavigable channel on the river? That is a complicated question; it is not as simple as it sounds. It is multi-agency. Ultimately, it is the South Australian government, but your question is: which agency in the South Australian government is responsible for that? It is not that simple. There are multi-agency responses that are responsible for that, and for good reason.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.