Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 September 2025.)

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (11:39): I am here as the lead speaker for the opposition for the Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025. This bill was introduced into the lower house on 18 June 2025 by the former Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and provides amendments to the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993. Key changes under this 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.

These rules override local council by-laws 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 enable 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. Examples of that are 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 by-laws.

There is a little bit of 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 them in the Gazette and other amendments are tidying up on this legislation. In preparation for the committee on this bill, we have consulted with SeaLink and the LGA. With that short contribution, we will be supporting the bill, but we will seek some clarification on some of the clauses during the committee stage.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (11:41): I rise today to speak on the Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025. This bill intends to keep our harbours safe, efficient and ready for the future. Our harbours are busy hubs for boats, ferries, fishing and tourism. They are places where many people gather to enjoy many different sports. Also a range of businesses, often small businesses, are located near our harbours, creating jobs for locals as they help our visitors to enjoy South Australia's beautiful coast.

This new bill is about making sure all these activities can happen safely and efficiently. It gives power to the minister responsible for our harbours the authority to set clear, tailor-made rules for each harbour. These rules will be public and easy to find online and focused on the harbours that need these changes. The rules will cover activities such as the maximum size limits for vessels, the reporting of incidents and hazards, and activities that may or may not be undertaken by people or vessels, and the priority and safety of movement of vessels within a harbour.

For example, the Kangaroo Island ferry service carries more than half a million passengers per year, around 146,000 cars and 1,400 freight units per year. Renowned for its natural beauty and rich farmlands, Kangaroo Island is one of Australia's most popular tourism spots and a vital centre for primary production. In fact, my staff member told me that when she was travelling through a small Croatian village last year, a local she met spoke of her recent travel to Australia and said that her favourite place in Australia had been her visit to Kangaroo Island in South Australia. So it is very well known around the world.

For Kangaroo Island's tourism success and economic success to continue, effective and reliable port infrastructure at Cape Jervis and Penneshaw is critical. The Malinauskas government is investing over $70 million to upgrade the ports. This includes replacement of the berthing and mooring facilities at both the Cape Jervis and Penneshaw ports, which service ferry operations between mainland South Australia and Kangaroo Island.

This bill allows for appropriate and prompt protection of both the public and the marine environment by giving the appropriate minister power to make a safety direction. For example, a temporary ban on swimming, or a safety directive made to close off an area during a boat race or competition, will put temporary measures in place when there is a higher than normal risk to people's safety—not necessarily an emergency, but something that needs action. In this bill, noncompliance with a safety direction will prevail over a council by-law, and incur a penalty of $10,000.

The bill also clarifies that harbours and ports can include areas owned by private people or companies but only with their agreement. It also aims to define rules about wharves and jetties. Section 15 of the law explains which harbour structures belong to the minister, including wharves, docks and jetties that are in or next to a harbour. Normally such structures are considered the minister's responsibility; however, the new bill makes it clear that this rule does not apply to wharves, docks, jetties and other structures that are privately owned and that were built after 24 October 1994.

Rules will not be created for all 33 harbours around the state. Harbours or parts of harbours that are subject to port operating agreements, like those operated by Flinders Ports, are not in scope. The bill also strengthens the powers to deal with wrecked boats. If a wreck becomes a hazard and an owner will not remove the wreck, the minister can step in to remove, destroy or sink it and recover costs from the owner. When a wreck is of historic importance, the minister must consult with the minister responsible for the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981 before acting.

Miscellaneous changes, including updating outdated legislation references and deleting expiation fees, which will be moved to regulations, aim to make it easy to adjust fees and penalties in the future. Given the passage of time, the maximum court penalty for failing to comply with a notice will increase from $5,000 to $10,000.

South Australia's harbours are part of our shared heritage and our future. The Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025 improves protections for people, supports ferry services, and safeguards the marine environment that we all value. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (11:48): I rise today to make a contribution to the Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, and to raise a matter of growing concern regarding the navigability of the River Murray and the safety of those who rely upon it every single day.

Some recent correspondence from the Department for Infrastructure and Transport to a number of Riverland councils confirmed what many of us suspected; that is, under the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993 there is currently no legal requirement for a navigable channel to be maintained on the River Murray. This is because the river is no longer defined as a harbour under the act—or that was what was given in the letter. I note that the government is currently amending this piece of legislation and what has become abundantly clear to me is that no-one in the government can clearly articulate whose responsibility it actually is to ensure that the Murray remains navigable.

I just want to be clear: this is not about blame. This is something, I think, that has arisen because, for the first time in nearly 50 years, we have had a particularly major flood in the River Murray, and so it is the first time in nearly 50 years that we have had to face this issue in such a way. The last major flood prior to the 2022-23 event was back in 1974 and then, obviously prior to that, 1956. Since 1974, navigation has, I guess, largely taken care of itself, but the 2022-23 Murray River flood event really changed the physical structure of the river in quite significant ways.

As the waters rose, the river did what rivers do best, and that is the water took the path of least resistance. That has created new channels through areas thick with vegetation, which in many cases is not navigable. Meanwhile, the original main channel has shifted with the movement of sand and banks, creating areas that are shallow and unpredictable.

I want to acknowledge that the Department for Infrastructure and Transport has undertaken some local GPS investigations for safety purposes, and that is absolutely a good start, but my concern is that without proper surveying, without a clear understanding of the depth, width and course of the navigable channel, we cannot be confident that the River Murray is safe for navigation. That is what concerns me most, because the river is not just a waterway; it is a lifeline for our regional communities. Many tourism operators, many houseboat businesses, recreational boaters and countless visitors use this river on a daily basis. Ensuring safe navigation is not a nice to have: it is a matter of public safety. It is also a matter of regional economic viability as well.

Again, I just want to make it really clear that I am not standing here pointing fingers. I think what I am trying to do is sound a little bit of an alarm. This is a gap in responsibility. From my understanding, it has been identified that there is a gap in responsibility in terms of navigation and ensuring that the River Murray channel is navigable, and that must be addressed. If no agency currently holds responsibility for maintaining navigability of the River Murray, then I firmly believe that our job in this place is to ensure that someone does, that an agency does have responsibility.

As shadow minister for water resources in the River Murray, I will continue to pursue this issue, and raise this issue, because, again, I think it is really important that the people who use the River Murray on a daily basis can do so safely and with confidence. I am standing up here today to urge the minister and the government to take this matter seriously, to clarify responsibility. Let's survey the river properly, and let's make sure that this iconic waterway remains safe and navigable for generations to come.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (11:54): I thank honourable members for their feedback today on this particular bill: the Hon. Ben Hood, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and the Hon. Tung Ngo. I look forward to talking these matters out further in the committee stage. As we have heard from I think most members who have spoken today, this legislation needs to be modernised. As our waterways are more modern, so, too, do our legislative requirements need to be modernised. This is a bill that started in 1913 with the original act. The new act came in in 1993. A lot has changed since 1993, and today's bill and amendments are addressing how we can further modernise this legislation.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I indicate I have some questions in regard to the River Murray and then my honourable colleague will take care of the rest. Under the current legislative framework in South Australia, can the minister indicate to the chamber who holds ultimate responsibility for ensuring the River Murray remains safely navigable?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The River Murray Act would be the primary act that covers these waterways. There is also a commonwealth act. Bear with me; we are just looking at that at the moment. I appreciate the honourable member's feedback in the chamber today. Obviously, it is a community that is dear to her, being her local community, but also the fact we are seeing a bill today before us that is modernising the act. This particular act has not ever recognised the River Murray as a harbour. That is why today is about making sure that we can have safe waterways.

I guess when I looked at it, it is like taking what we do on our roads already. When we are doing maintenance on our roads, we put out the witch's hats to say, 'This is an area of safety concern. Please stay out of this area,' or we can declare an area that needs to be highlighted to the community that this is not right for using at this point in time. I know that there are regular safety checks of the Murray. Marine safety officers are in place to make sure that they can check to see if our waterways are safe and identify those locations that are not appropriate to be using at this point in time.

As you have highlighted rightfully as well, the Murray does flood. At the moment, it seems to be doing it regularly. To be able to work with what we have and identify those locations that are not safe at that time, the amendments in this bill will enable us to be a bit more agile to put those reinforcements in place when they are required.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the minister for her answer. I guess my confusion is around the correspondence from her department, and I appreciate that the minister was not the minister at the time. Nevertheless, the correspondence was from the minister of the time, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and in that letter it stated the reason for the fact that the department had no legal requirement for a navigable channel to be maintained on the River Murray was that the river is no longer defined as a harbour under the act. When you read a letter like that, you would assume that at some point in time it was defined under the act.

I have tried to do some due diligence on this, and I cannot find where it was. Can the minister maybe confirm whether her department has been able to determine whether the river was defined as a harbour under this act or any previous acts in terms of navigation responsibility?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: From the opportunities that I have had to look into this myself, following your feedback—and again, I appreciate that you have raised this as a concern of yours—my understanding is that in 1913 the river was seen as a harbour. I guess times have changed since then. This is where we are getting to with the bill that is in front of us today: as we are seeing ports a bit more like Penneshaw and Cape Jervis, where we are seeing a higher commercial and recreational use of those harbours, we are seeing a need to put layers of protection in, and that is what this is in front of us today.

I guess in 1913 the River Murray was seen as having a very different purpose to what it is today. It was a route that was able to supply freight needs along the river. As times have changed, the observation of what the river is used for has also changed. Again, that is my very brief understanding of the history that is behind this. In 1993, when this new act came into place, it was not seen as a harbour.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I thank the minister for her answer. In appreciating that we are trying to modernise, I think it is still important to appreciate that whilst the River Murray is no longer viewed as a freight route it certainly is viewed as a route in terms of recreation and in terms of tourism. Certainly it is my understanding, when going through the River Murray Act, that that act, in particular, is silent on navigation. It is also my understanding that the commonwealth act does not apply to navigation within South Australian waters. My question is: does the department accept that there is currently a gap in the responsibility to ensure that the River Murray is safely navigable for those tourism operators and for those recreational users who use the River Murray on a daily basis?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: My understanding, and as I am advised, is that this bill still requires the safety navigational purposes of the river. This bill will still cover that this has to be a safe passage of water to navigate. As I said earlier, if there is an area that is identified as being of concern, buoys will be put out to identify that this is not a safe passage and that they should use another passage instead. That will take place not only on the river but also in other harbours where we identify that there may be concerns. Examples of that would be—and correct me if I am wrong here—if a jetty is being maintained or a wharf is being maintained and repaired. They would have to, as we would on our roadsides, identify that this is not a safe area to be at this point in time and to stay away from that area until we determine that it is safe to return.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Can the minister acknowledge, though, that obviously, in terms of navigation in the River Murray, unlike in our marine and our coastal waters—well, perhaps not particularly at the moment, but previously—it is a lot easier to see in terms of where the sand is. We know that the River Murray, in terms of visibility, is very difficult. So going back to that safe passage of navigation, does the department acknowledge that, without a clear navigation channel through things like surveying, liability and safety responsibilities are being left to individual operators?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As highlighted earlier, the marine safety officers that we have in place, I am advised, are able to check these waterways regularly, including the river, to identify where there may not be a safe passage. They are able to then put those buoys out to say, 'This is the safer passage to be using at this point in time.' As you have highlighted, this might change regularly with the river because we do have such big movements in water that come through with flooding. However, those marine officers are able to ensure that the safe passages are identified through appropriate markings.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Thank you, minister. Can you perhaps just outline to the chamber how those marine safety officers are checking that these channels are safely navigable? What modes are they using?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: There might be a variety of reasons. It might just be that there is a regular routine check. A member of the community or a council may have highlighted that there is a need for this particular area to be checked. There could be a variety of reasons as to why a safety marine officer has decided to check the safety of that passage.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I appreciate that, minister, but how do they check? What tools do they use to check?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that it is monitoring technology and visual analysis.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: As I think the minister can appreciate, the visual analysis in the River Murray—it is not very easy to see under water. Can the minister elaborate any further on those technologies?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I will have to look into that further and get information back to you. My apologies.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Perhaps I might ask then: has the department undertaken any formal survey or mapping of the River Murray's navigable channel following the 2022-23 flood event within South Australian waters?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised there has been a safety assessment undertaken and that it commenced in 2025. That has been undertaken.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I think I spoke about that briefly in my second reading speech. My understanding is that safety assessment was via GPS. My question again is: has the department undertaken any formal surveying of the River Murray's navigable channel following the 2022-23 flood?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am happy to come back and clarify further the feedback you require. Be assured that assessments are being undertaken. This is being taken seriously and I guess that is the intent of this bill as well. It is about ensuring that our waterways can be safer, and not just ensuring that our waterways are safe but that we can actually act when they are not.

We have been doing what we think is the right thing, but not having the legislative framework to protect what we are doing as well. This particular bill is hopefully going to modernise and reinforce what we need to do to have safer waterways. I can appreciate your concerns and what you are raising, but we just need to take that on notice and have a look into it further.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Thank you, minister. I would appreciate that and I appreciate you looking into this matter. If you could also take on notice: if the department has not undertaken any formal surveying—my understanding is that they have not, but happy for the minister to clarify—what threshold would trigger formal surveying of the River Murray to ensure that it is navigable?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am not sure that it falls within the bill that is before us today. I can appreciate that this is of great interest to you. I am happy to have these discussions outside this particular bill we are debating today, but I think we all in agreeance—and I know you would be as well—that the bill before us is really about creating a safer passage. If we identify that there is an unsafe passage, we can make the community aware and we can actually enforce that, instead of just hoping we can get away with it without the appropriate legislation in place.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just a final comment. Thank you, minister, I appreciate your comments. We are in agreement that we need to ensure that all our waterways have a safe passage. All I would add is that it is a lot more difficult to do that in the River Murray where those waters are not clear, hence my questioning in terms of making sure that we have things like surveys in place into the future.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I can add a little bit of further information, apologies. The depth is checked by echo sounders and fitted to department vessels so that when they are doing those monitoring checks they can identify if there is an area that is too shallow to be navigated. There are also third-party surveys at Settlers Bend that have been undertaken as well, is my understanding.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I have just one question at clause 1, the rest will be at clause 13. Can the minister advise the chamber what effect, if any, this legislation has on the Port of Whyalla?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised none.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I promise this is the last one, Mr Chairman. I am happy for the minister to take this on notice: can she provide who was the third party that did that survey?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am happy to look into that further, yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: The former minister's second reading speech states that harbour rules will not be created for all 33 harbours around the state and that harbour rules are likely to be developed particularly for harbours where the ferry services operate, such as Penneshaw and Cape Jervis. Can the government or the minister clarify exactly to which harbours it is proposed that these new harbour rules will apply?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The focus at this point in time is Penneshaw and Cape Jervis. There has been consultation with those communities because, as we have highlighted not only today but also in the chamber yesterday, there has been a lot of change there. We have new, bigger vessels on their way, and we are seeing far greater use of commercial ferries alongside recreational use as well. At the moment, as much as we can go out there and tell recreational purposes or the ferry to maybe do things differently, there is no way of enforcing it. This will enable us to put those protections in place and make it a safer harbour and one that has been acknowledged is needed.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I thank the minister for her response. What will stop future governments extending the way in which these rules operate and applying them to other South Australian harbours beyond Cape Jervis and Penneshaw, or beyond what the former minister had identified in his second reading speech, which was to apply these rules in harbours where ferry services operate?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: As I have highlighted, it will only be for those particular two harbours at this point in time. It really would be on a needs-by-needs basis, if there was a high need because of concerns about safety risk. But, really, this is about those two particular harbours at this point in time. Just as a reminder, it is harbours, not ports, so just those areas that are for public purpose as well as commercial purpose.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Staying on 29AA but on page 7 of the amendment bill, it is noted under this act that authorised officers may be appointed who are also local government employees. I know that this has certainly been debated in other bills in this place. The Attorney-General actually was asked, through the truncated debate on the Biodiversity Bill that passed parliament earlier this year, about liability protections for authorised officers.

In that debate, the government declined to support the amendments proposed by my colleague the Hon. Nicola Centofanti to include a new clause in the Biodiversity Act which would have addressed the issues of liability coverage for council-employed authorised officers appointed under that act. The proposed amendment for that Biodiversity Bill was:

An authorised officer who takes action under this Act in good faith does not incur any civil or criminal liability for taking that action.

At the time, the Attorney-General declined to address the issue in a piecemeal way and committed to addressing the wider issues of liability protections for council-employed authorised officers through a review of section 74 of the Public Sector Act. In circumstances where the minister has already appointed authorised officers or intends to appoint authorised officers who are also local government employees to assist in the enforcement of the new rules and directives proposed under this amendment bill, the Harbors and Navigations (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, can the minister advise the chamber what liabilities are afforded to them under the Harbors and Navigation Act?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised section 89(2) and (3) of the act operate to expressly provide that an authorised person incurs no civil liability under the act, so the protections, I guess, are already identified and seen.

Clause passed.

Clauses 14 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: At 67A—Safety direction, page 8, I refer to the previous minister's second reading speech, which states that the safety directions will prevail over any council by-laws. Given that these directions may be temporary and put in place within a very short period to respond to emerging issues, how does the minister propose that adequate consultation with councils will occur to ensure that inconsistencies do not arise in any conflicts between the council by-law and the safety direction?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that steps would be taken to advise the council and also provide that notice to the public, I believe on a website, and in the Gazette as well.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: What is the timeframe in which you will be consulting the council and also the public before things are brought into effect?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised it would be on a case-by-case basis. It really depends on the incident that is at hand, but we would absolutely be seeking to advise the council as soon as possible.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: If a safety direction overrides a council by-law, once that period of operation of that direction has expired, will the council by-law just automatically return fully to force?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised, yes.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: In the previous minister's second reading speech, he stated that safety directions will be used to ensure safety and can impose restrictions, with examples such as to prohibit swimming or limit vessel speed. What enforcement activities are proposed to be undertaken by the state government under the safety direction to ensure public safety and what assurances can the minister give that these enforcement functions will not be cost shifted to local government through specific actions or activities?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I have been advised that it would be unusual for a council employee to be enforcing safety precautions and directions. It would more likely be a state government employee.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: So there is not a case in which enforcement functions would be cost shifted onto local councils? You could not think of any examples of that?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised it is highly unlikely.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Our local councils are often subject to Crown vesting land management arrangements for assets and infrastructure within harbours and navigable waters. They already have obligations to ensure safety and amenity for local communities under these arrangements. What assurances can the minister provide that, under the current safety directions, local government entities would not be subject to punitive measures under the safety directives for infrastructure that is already maintained for community benefit?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: These requirements, I am advised, are not about requiring a council to go and fix problems. This is about creating safer waterways, enabling, I guess, when someone is doing the wrong thing for that person or those people to be held accountable.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: So these safety directions would not be used, I suppose, to impose additional costs or requirements on councils outside of existing lease arrangements? That would not be the case?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that would not be the case.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: And in a similar vein, these safety directions would not compel councils to address historical asset conditions of infrastructure?

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I am advised that this bill is in place to restrict people from accessing a dangerous site, so this is not, as I am advised, that you now need to fix this particular piece of infrastructure. As I said earlier, this bill is to enable us, when we are fixing a road, to put out those safety markers, enabling us to do that and having the authority to do that.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I thank the minister for her comments. It is just good to get that on the record.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (23 and 24) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Autism) (12:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.