Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Houseboat Strategy HOUSEBOAT STRATEGY The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER Legislative Council HOUSEBOAT STRATEGY The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (14:51): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning questions on the houseboat mooring and marinas strategy. Leave granted. The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER Legislative Council The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: I have the submission by Houseboat South Australia, which is the peak body for owners and users of houseboats in South Australia, commenting on the houseboat mooring and marinas strategy and guidelines for the River Murray in South Australia. Among other comments, that group states that it wishes to provide additional feedback on a number of things, including, to use its words: The flawed and blatantly inaccurately based data, lack of credible science and ridiculous assumptions on which the River Murray Marinas Strategy has been based; The inadequate and inept consultancy process employed by the Department in an effort to implement unwanted and unneeded regulation, simply 'for regulations sake'; and The apparent victimization of one small sector of the recreational boating users of the River Murray in South Australia. The submission continues that the critical concerns include the government's: blinkered intent to 'regulate purely for regulations sake'; apparent position against recreational houseboat use on the River Murray; reliance on incorrect information, reports and supporting science in the formation of the strategy; and ill informed development of the River Murray Marinas Strategy, which is seen as a major threat to the very existence of houseboating in South Australia. It further criticises the economic data used, which states that $61.2 million is the amount put into the economy by houseboating. It argues that the figures taken in 2004 are out of date, that no multiplier effect was used and that a more accurate—and its lowest—assumption is $183.6 million. It further queries the use of data which, by the admission in the government's paper itself, notes that 'this document is not a formal research paper and has no formal status'. My questions are: 1.	Does the minister agree that the economic model and the base data used for the development of this strategy are flawed and out of date? 2.	With regard to permanent mooring sites in registered off-river marinas, how many such marinas are to be built, where are they to be built and will they result in increased mooring fees? 3.	Will local councils have any meaningful input into planning and zoning, given that, as I understand it, this is to have major development status, or will this be completely in the hands of the state government for development? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:55): In October last year I released for public comment the Draft Houseboat Mooring and Marina Strategy for the River Murray. To put into context the comments that the honourable member just read out, it was a draft strategy for comment. From the point of view of the urban development and planning department, our principal interest in this strategy is to ensure that we identify those sites along the river where it is most appropriate to have permanent marinas. Obviously, other departments are involved in issues in terms of managing the Murray and issues associated with houseboats such as ensuring minimum environmental impact from the emptying of grey water, and the like. They are essentially the concern of other agencies. As I said, I released the Draft Houseboat Mooring and Marina Strategy last year. A number of meetings have been held at Renmark, Waikerie and Murray Bridge, and there has been a lot of comment on that, and I have received a number of submissions. It was quite obvious early in the piece that people objected to some issues, for example, some of the discussion items about mooring on trees. I, along with my colleague the Minister for the River Murray, Karlene Maywald, have already announced that that particular proposal in the draft strategy has been rejected. I will be separating from the strategy and dealing first with that part that relates specifically to any demand for those marinas to be taken up. In terms of some of the other issues, public discussions have raised some legitimate concerns, which I have discussed with my colleague the Minister for the River Murray, and I sense that we will not be proceeding with many of them. However, we need to deal with the issue of suitable sites for marinas, because there is a lot of pressure to have them. My intention at this stage is to proceed along those lines. In relation to the honourable member's question about whether they are major projects, I am not quite sure where that comes from. The previous marina proposed for Mannum was undertaken as a major project and was subject to a full EIS. At that time we did not have a marina strategy to indicate the right places to consider. Once we have the marina strategy in place—and I think that work has been done—the appropriate sites can be identified. There are recommendations in the strategy indicating where these marinas would be best located, for instance, within a reasonable distance of a town, so that there are facilities for dealing with grey water and other issues. Once the marina strategy is in place, local government would be in a position to regulate them. I take this opportunity to thank local government bodies along the river for their cooperation and for working with the strategy to help identify particular sites where marinas are best located. That is something that will be finalised when the development plan amendment comes out, which is really the next stage. Once we have this marina strategy in place, that should enable future marinas to be built. When these principles have been identified and the development plans amended, my understanding is that they would then be approved by the relevant councils, rather than having to be done as major projects, as has been the case in the past.