Parliamentary Committees

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley:

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

(Continued from 27 February 2008. Page 1870.)

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (16:23): Apart from our indigenous Australians, the first European people to embrace the coast were probably Australians. For a long time that meant healthy outdoor holidays—crabbing, swimming, fishing and beach cricket—and home base was a simple shack, unit, caravan park or tent. However, over the past two decades we have begun to love and exploit our coast to death.

As a consequence of what is termed 'seachange', luxury holiday mansions are privatising clifftop views and disturbing, if not destroying, birdlife; marinas are disrupting the normal movement of sand and water; new industries, such as aquaculture, are polluting the waters; and BHP Billiton and Greg Norman have set a trend towards desalination plants to serve private interests to the potential detriment of our coastline. In the process we are destroying not only the coastal environment but also the easy-going, egalitarianism of the beach. We are in the process of creating a society where only the well-off will have easy access to the beach—and how unAustralian is that!

This valuable and timely report documents the problems and gives some very useful strategies for action. These include important new processes, such as giving the Coastal Protection Board power to direct in regard to coastal hazards rather than (as it currently does) just give advice and have it ignored, giving NRM boards input into the planning process to protect native vegetation, and help for councils so that they can better control development and update development plans.

There are some important new ideas in this report, such as the need to consider the cumulative impacts of development—so, rather than looking at one house on its own we would look at that house in relation to all the others that have gone up. This is a concept we should really bring into all development planning everywhere. The report also notes the loss of a sense of place being experienced in many seaside communities, and recommends limits to height and setbacks, as well as greater sympathy in design. It also notes the visual pollution of our coastlines.

One area in which the report could have been improved is that of social impact, the way in which beachfront living is increasingly being denied to people on low to medium incomes. The report was also a bit light on in regard to jetties. The decay of jetties is a major long-term threat to tourism and the amenity of our coastline. Jetties are a vital part of the evening or morning stroll for many people; they make it possible for people who cannot afford boats to engage in low-cost fishing, and they are the site of holiday romances and courting rituals of young people. They are an important part of the attraction of beachside holidays, and they are therefore economically important.

Members may recall the efforts I made a few years ago to assist the locals at Rapid Bay to have their jetty restored. Without a working jetty their economy has nosedived because it centred around the jetty, tourists and divers. The local residents have to be congratulated for the pressure they successfully brought to bear on government, resulting in an undertaking for a replacement jetty to be built. The Rapid Bay jetty is probably the worst example of a jetty simply being left to rot, but many other jetties are decaying. Nails and bolts protrude, boards hang loose; they are civil liability cases waiting to happen. We need some consideration now of how this vital part of local tourism infrastructure can be maintained around the state.

I think this report missed jetties because of a general lack of awareness of social issues. I note, for instance, that the words 'families' and 'children', two of the main users of jetties, do not appear in this report. Nonetheless, it is a very good report and it should be the start of a new and sustainable direction in the management of our coast and marine environments. The question is: will it?

There are three barriers to this happening: a willingness by government to bend the rules to assist developers; the cleverness of developers; and an unwillingness by government to take action. The first of these barriers is that whatever rules are put into place can be bent, broken or avoided by a development-obsessed government. Consider the track record of this government. The Southern Ocean Resort on Kangaroo Island was rammed through by the state government even though it was against the Kangaroo Island development plan. Accountability comes second in the rush to get developers' money.

The Copper Coast has its first high-rise residential tower, the six-storey Copper Cove Marina Hotel at Wallaroo—so completely out of place on that coastline—and a second one is on the way. Port Lincoln now has a seven-storey hotel, which is more understandable than the Wallaroo decision, because Port Lincoln is five times the size of Wallaroo, but there is a risk that it will be followed by more and more towers until we have another great wall of Glenelg that shuts off any view of the sea. How many Adelaide residents have been affronted, as I was, by the building of apartments at the end of Anzac Highway? For many of us it was part of our youth to travel its length and see the gulf as we approached the end of the road. Surely we should all be able to share the views.

The report notes that declining water quality is a major threat to our marine habitat—which, being out of sight, is effectively out of mind—and therefore the trend towards brine-producing desalination plants is of major concern. Such plants are being considered at Port Hughes to water Greg Norman's millionaires' golf course and residential development. Local recreational fishers at Port Hughes, and the small tourist-based businesses that depend on them, will pay a heavy price if the water around the Port Hughes jetty becomes too salty for fishing.

BHP wants and almost certainly will get a huge desalination plant at the head of Spencer Gulf. If it gets its way, Whyalla will have to replace the tourism based on the spawning of the giant cuttlefish with exports of dead and salted cuttlefish.

Clifftop housing at Scaeles Bay, near Streaky Bay, is threatening the habitat of rare sea eagles. Of course, marinas are sprouting everywhere on the coast: Yorke Peninsula has marinas at Wallaroo and Port Vincent, and one is planned for Stansbury. Another one is planned a little further away at Port Wakefield, in an environmentally sensitive samphire area, right up against a conservation park.

Back in the city, a five-storey apartment and tower is proposed for Henley Square. Where this is built, more will follow, there is no doubt. You can be sure that, in the longer term, there will be a wall of glass and cement overshadowing the delightful Henley Square and blocking the view of the sea. You would think that the local council would have learnt from what we see at the end of Anzac Highway.

High-rise development is destroying the character and heritage of Port Adelaide—and that is a tragedy. Port Adelaide was ripe for sensitive development to enhance its outstanding collection of heritage buildings but, instead, its character will be swamped by the glitzy and monstrously oversized Newport Quays. Legal action against local residents who criticised this development is highlighting, once again, that the fast money to be made from development brings out all the worst instincts of developers and governments.

Development can also be a threat to our democracy. We have seen this with the SLAPP writs that have landed on local residents and environmental groups when they have dared to query some developments in this state. We have also seen the anti-democratic nature of planning decisions in the past few weeks in regard to the Wollongong council in New South Wales. Who you know, who you sleep with, and how much money you have is the final arbiter, it seems.

This development rush on our sensitive coastline highlights the second barrier to a sustainable egalitarian and convivial coastline. Developers move much faster than governments. They have smart lawyers and, as I have already said, they use SLAPP writs to stop opposition. We have seen with the Wollongong council in New South Wales that, if you have money, money talks. It will take years for this government to catch up and, by then, the developers will have done their damage, moved on and left a trail of pollution and inequality behind them, with state and local governments—in other words, the ordinary taxpayer—having to pick up the costs.

Then there is the third great threat: this report will be buried. I hope my predictions are wrong, but I suspect that it will gather dust and most of its recommendations will never see the light of day. We will all wait with interest to see what the minister has to say when he responds directly to the committee in about a month. I will be delighted if there is positive action from the government as a result, but none of us will be holding our breath.

This report highlights that our planning processes just cannot cope. We do not even have a way of assessing developments that threaten endangered species. We need to slow down this mad sea change to let our processes catch up and evolve. Some aspects of coastal development are complex and will require time to think through, but others are simple and all they will require is an act of will by our leaders—that is, us.

Greg Norman is planning a desal plant to water his millionaires' golf course at Port Hughes. The price will be paid, however, by the ordinary folk who fish off the jetty. Our coastal councils cannot keep up with the rate of applications and the pressure of development on our fragile coastline. I am, therefore, pleased that the Environment, Resources and Development Committee has produced this excellent report, and I am very happy to support the motion.

Motion carried.