HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-09-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Coastal Path

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (16:03): Like many South Australians, on Friday morning I was sitting with the candidate for Colton, Angela Vaughan and, again like many South Australians, we were shocked and disappointed to learn that a group of residents won their case before the Supreme Court to block the construction of that section of the coastal path from Semaphore through to Grange. I believe that this section of the coastal path is the last section, if not amongst the last sections, to be finished.

Members of this chamber are aware that the coastal path is a shared path along our beautiful coastline that extends from North Haven to Sellicks Beach. I recall being at the launch of this project, which was held at Stella's in the lead-up to the 2002 election. The Hon. Diana Laidlaw was the then minister for planning. My wife, Annabel, and I were there as local residents, which we still are, and I was also there as the Labor candidate.

The coastal path was and remains a great initiative and has, in a political sense, enjoyed bipartisan support across all spheres of government, and why wouldn't it? It is a coastal path stretching some 70 kilometres, providing equality of access for all along what is a most remarkable coastline, one which we can all share and which all South Australians have a right to access.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court found that the City of Charles Sturt and the decision it made were contrary to the management plans, and accordingly are unlawful. Despite the fact that the council has consulted extensively—and I know this to be true—it erred by not consulting on the path's final alignment, and council itself has acknowledged that this was seen as an error. I say, in my typical layman manner, that, while true, residents opposed to this development won their case on a technicality.

This group of residents refer to themselves as the Coastal Ecology Protection Group (CEPG). To me, this is a curious name that they have given themselves. I do not believe that they really are about protecting the coastal ecology. To me and many others, this group is about protecting their own habitat, or what they believe is their own habitat. They do not want a path out the front of their million-dollar homes. They do not want people walking, cycling or pushing their prams in and along what they see as their private domain—a private domain where many have planted lawn beyond their residential boundary on land owned by the Minister for Environment and under the care and control of council.

The proposed route of the coastal path does not encroach on their land. It is to traverse Crown land owned by the minister, as I said, on behalf of all South Australians. Some might say I am being a little bit harsh; well, I am not. In doing so, I will just refer to the article that appeared in The Advertiser last Friday that quoted a Tennyson resident who:

…said he feared that building a coastal walk would cause unnecessary disturbance to the peaceful neighbourhood.

"We have enough coastal walks around Adelaide, like Semaphore, Glenelg, we don't need another one," he said.

"The construction would cause general disturbance, people buy their houses here to have peace and quiet, and their own beach."

Well, doesn't that say it all, Deputy Speaker? Does that not say it all? I would be very interested to know if this self-professed ecology group has ever volunteered with the Tennyson Dunes Group in undertaking the work on dunes, which in reality are the only remnant dunes that exist along our metropolitan coastline. This is where the real coastal ecology protection is being undertaken, and I congratulate the Tennyson Dunes Group on their outstanding work.

If it were not for the fact that we as a government dropped sand out the front of these people's homes, they would not have a beach, nor would they have the reclaimed land that has been created out the front of their houses. Their homes are actually built on sand dunes. Good for them that they are able to live on land which was once sand dunes. Also in the article I mentioned earlier, the CEPG spokeswoman is quoted as saying:

Ultimately, CEPG believes the decision shows there is strong support for the group's wishes for considered development, supported by science, in consultation with the community which understands the delicate nature of the dunes and has long nurtured the unique system.

Well, I say that is poppycock. I want to conclude by saying that this group, unlike the outstanding Tennyson Dunes Group, operates out of self-interest and selfishness. The Tennyson Dunes Group has worked closely with agencies to develop plans for an environmentally sustainable path through what is the only remnant remains of the sand dune system that once existed along our coastline. Importantly, all people will be able to walk this path through what is the jewel in the crown of the entire stretch of the coastal path. It will be completed, it must be completed and it will be constructed. As the CEPG spokesperson also said, 'common sense would ultimately prevail'. It will, but not in the way they think.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT