HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-12-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Coastline Protection

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (11:54): I move:

That this house—

(a) recognises the significant asset that our coastline represents to the South Australian community and economy;

(b) acknowledges that preservation and protection of this precious natural resource will benefit generations to come; and

(c) acknowledges the Liberal government's significant investment in the preservation of South Australia's coastline.

I take the opportunity in parliament today to speak about the importance of the 5,067 kilometres of both metropolitan and regional coastline in South Australia. Approximately 90 per cent of South Australians live on or near the coast. I spoke in parliament last week about the importance of surf lifesaving, and a large part of that is due to the fact that beaches are so very popular with people. That means that many people visit the beach and need to be kept safe. In fact, the beaches around South Australia are the most visited public land in South Australia.

In terms of my electorate of Morphett, the stretch of beach that sits in that electorate goes from the outlet of the Patawalonga near the Glenelg breakwater down south through Somerton Park, down to the John Miller Reserve at Somerton Park. This large continuous open space is the largest continuous open space in Morphett, with a coast park as well, which many people get to use on an ongoing basis, especially on weekends.

Of course, before European settlement the coast had many dunes along it. In fact, these dunes formed a natural barrier to not only the rivers and creeks that ran out to the sea but also the ocean. That barrier meant that there was lots of marshland just behind the dunes. When the first European settlers came here on the Buffalo and set anchor in Holdfast Bay, the landing party then went up the Patawalonga. In fact, they had to go inland about a kilometre to find that dry land. That is why, on Proclamation Day at the Old Gum Tree, we have the ceremony where South Australia was first proclaimed.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: The government was first proclaimed.

Mr PATTERSON: The government was first proclaimed. Thank you, Attorney, for pointing that out.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Kangaroo Island was the first place that was settled.

Mr PATTERSON: I see. Yes, of course, Kangaroo Island was landed on and looked at. Unfortunately, it did not have enough fresh water to sustain a burgeoning city, such as Adelaide was to become. That point really does reflect on the fact that the Old Gum Tree is on the city side of Brighton Road. Today's development has it about a kilometre inland. I suppose that shows what the natural environment was like beforehand, because the Mount Lofty Ranges were a bit like a green island, so the rain falls down and makes its way back to the coast.

Coming back to the point around coastlines, the dunes and the marshes that were originally there formed quite a barrier towards the coast as well. In fact, while there has been a lot of development, there are still some remnant dunes along the Adelaide metropolitan coastline. Tennyson has dunes and there is also the Minda dunes near Somerton Park, between Repton Road and Gladstone Road in North Brighton.

The member for Gibson and I recently opened the coast park that brought those two sections of coast park together. The great thing about going for a walk along there is not only that the coast park has been put behind the primary dune, so it does not actually damage the dune, but also that it gives people the opportunity to see what a dune system looks like. We still have the secondary dunes there as well, which help reinforce the natural dune system that builds up sand over many, many years.

Along with protecting those dune systems, many volunteers have helped to revegetate the dunes over the years. They add another bulwark to the dunes to stop erosion from occurring. As I touched on, going back over a century development has occurred not only on the dunes but also quite close to the coast. This has meant that rock walls have now been put in place where dunes once were to provide that natural protection. We now have rock walls in place to protect not only the road infrastructure and coast park infrastructure but also housing.

The natural protection that dunes offer to replenish beaches after storms has gone, so these sandy beaches are now prone to the natural movements that take place, the northward littoral drift that occurs naturally at Gulf St Vincent, where the waves heading north cause the sand to build up on the northern beaches at North Haven and Semaphore, while at the same time eroding those southern and central coast beaches, starting at Kingston Park and working their way up through Seacliff, Brighton, Somerton Park, Glenelg and then on to West Beach and Henley Beach South. Essentially, you could think of the metropolitan coastline as being one long beach running 28 kilometres, from Kingston Park to Outer Harbor.

Unfortunately, the loss of this sand over time means that there is less sand on the beach to reduce the strength of incoming waves and absorb storm energy, which does occur, and this also increases erosion further. Because of this, you have this challenge where sand is being washed away. The beaches are an important public asset, the most visited public realm in South Australia, and so since 1973 there has been a need to see these beaches protected via sand replenishment. That has resulted in sand being moved back, reticulated through the system, from the northern beaches back to the southern beaches.

Even with this occurring, critical shortfalls have still occurred at certain beaches, such as West Beach. I know that the member for Colton has been really active in his advocacy to see the West Beach protected. There has also been a wider net sand loss through the beach system overall because of storms and also, to some extent, rising sea levels.

In fact, a report commissioned by the Danish Hydraulic Institute showed that the loss of sand at West Beach has been significant and that the actual loss was greater than first estimated. We need to look at a sustainable approach to managing our beaches that will involve, to some extent, recycling some of the sand where sand builds up, and also adding external sand to the system, which is really quite important.

I should say that this year the parliament passed the Landscape SA Act, which helps to prioritise coastal management as one of the seven priority focus areas for Green Adelaide, which does help ensure there will be a coordinated approach to managing our metropolitan coastline. It will involve partnerships with local government and non-government organisations. This act also looks at the effects of, and addressed the significance of, climate change to the management of our natural resources, and this was given express recognition in the objects of the Landscape SA Act.

Of course, to touch on climate change and the effects it has on rising sea levels, it really is a global problem. It is not something that we can think South Australia can address alone. Even at a national level as well, it is something that is bigger than just our country. We have had lots of debates around trying to reduce emissions from electricity generation, but there are so many other factors involved in what potentially could be driving climate change. Whether it be from the transport sector, the agricultural sector, deforestation or population growth, there are many factors at play here in South Australia.

It has been widely reported in the commentary that Australia produces 1.3 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. So, yes, while there is work that can be done by both the South Australian government and the Australian government, I think we need to realise that it is a global problem. Certainly, where the state government has to pay attention, and is paying attention, is in the form of adaption to what can happen. We have to be quite open with our constituencies around that as well. There is a lot of pressure on governments to act, and I think one area where we need to act is in adaption. That is certainly what we are doing as a government in terms of practical measures on the ground, and one of those is the coastal management that we are looking to do here.

In fact, in the 2019-20 state budget the government included a significant solution for our coasts by injecting $48 million of new funds to be invested into our metropolitan coastline over the next four years. Part of this was beach replenishment: $20 million is to be put towards additional sand, which will equate to approximately 500,000 cubic metres of newly sourced sand being added into the system. This would also be supplemented with $28.4 million being put towards the completion of the sand recycling pipeline from Semaphore to West Beach.

I will just touch on the benefits of this pipeline. There is currently a pipeline between Glenelg and Kingston Park. I can certainly remember, before the pipeline was in place, that a lot of the sand replenishment would involve trucks carting sand from Glenelg Beach and making their way through many local streets. Heavy trucks would drive along Glenelg and leave big grooves in the sand. They would go along Kent Street, which is quite narrow, before going down Moseley Street and King George Avenue to the southern beaches.

That was quite noisy and dangerous, and during the winter months it was less than attractive on Glenelg Beach, which, as I have said before, is one of the most visited public spaces in South Australia. The replacement of these trucks occurred in November 2013; I acknowledge that the former government put that in place. Those pipelines allow for sand to be collected at the Glenelg pumping station, which runs on an electric motor and is very quiet. In fact, the pumping station is in front of the heavily used playground by the Glenelg Town Hall.

The pumping station has been set up as a viewing platform, with shade sails for sun protection. Many would not be aware that it is actually a pumping station. The sand is mixed with sea water to form a slurry—roughly 70 per cent sea water to 30 per cent sand—and this slurry makes it way through pipes that go along the coast. There are booster stations at John Miller Reserve in Somerton Park and Wattle Reserve in Hove, in order to make its way further south.

There are 11 discharge points, which means that sand can be injected onto beaches. It is quite targeted; that sand is washed around by natural wave action and helps to replenish those beaches. I think the extension of the sand pipeline from Semaphore to West Beach is going to be fantastic, and the $28.4 million investment there will be fantastic for local communities. I hope the member for Colton will contribute to this motion and go into that further.

In the time remaining, I will also spend some time discussing another activity that may not be so obvious, in terms of the coast: the blue carbon strategy that the minister is looking to progress. Principally, blue carbon is centred around underwater ecosystems, quite close to the tidal flats. I think 90 per cent of the blue carbon in South Australia is produced in seagrass meadows. There are also saltmarshes and mangroves. If managed well, these have the ability to capture carbon.

I think the minister has introduced a strategy around blue carbon and is trying to progress that. This will hopefully have great benefits in being able to absorb carbon, which can last for hundreds even thousands of years. That will be really important for us going forward, as will the effect of the regeneration of sea meadows has on local habitats and fisheries. In terms of local fish stocks, that is certainly going to be important.

They are some—not all—of the strategies being progressed by this government in order to protect the coast, which is so very important, not only to my constituents in Morphett but to all South Australians who love to use our beaches, now and for many years to come.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:09): I rise to perhaps somewhat reluctantly support this motion. I considered whether to propose an amendment, because the last dot point is a little self-congratulatory on behalf of the government. I am not entirely convinced that all the ways in which money is being spent by this government on the coast are appropriate.

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that there is significant investment and that at least some of the ways in which that money is being spent will be useful and good for the environment. Therefore, in the generosity of the nearly last day of parliament, I have decided not to vainly attempt to amend it. However, I would say two things: one is that we have to treat our coastline with enormous caution in the way that we actively manage it, and I will come back to that; the other is to note that our coast all the way around South Australia is under very serious threat.

It is under threat anyway because coastal processes can be reasonably aggressive and often incompatible with the way in which humans choose to arrange their developments, i.e. they love to build near the beach, as we all do, because we love to look at the sea, and that is not always compatible with the way in which coastlines move and evolve over time. It is absolutely an acute issue in the face of climate change. The looming threat from increased storms, as well as sea level rise, is something that we are going to deal with over a number of years and decades, I hope in a bipartisan way, because if we do not we will leave South Australia far poorer.

One element of the expenditure that I will acknowledge is positive, although I think everyone would agree completely inadequate, is the $4 million for coast protection works in the regions. I acknowledge that. I am pleased that it is there. Obviously, it will not go far. It will be in partnership with local governments, but many coastal councils have raised with me the desperate need for a far greater fund, and so I am hopeful, as I said, that over the years and decades it is something that we will collectively give priority to.

To return to the first issue of the need to exercise caution in the way in which we actively manage our coasts, I think that we can be a little captured by an engineering approach, rather than an environmental approach. That became particularly acutely obvious to me when dealing with the Semaphore issue. I used to work in the department. I worked there for about seven years and have the highest respect for the people who work there and their expertise. I do not ever want to be one of those members of parliament, particularly in opposition, who choose to blame public servants. I have always chosen to speak truthfully and well of the earnest desire in the Public Service to do a very good job.

But I think the proposal to put a truck road through a dune that has never had a truck road through it and to have it there probably permanently—there was no proposal that I ever saw to remove it—was cavalier. For two years, the road would take trucks up to 20 weeks a year and during those weeks, during working days, there would be a truck every six minutes full of sand going up and down that road through the dunes. I think that was an example of the local environment and the values of that local environment to the environment itself, not just to the people who enjoy it and care for it.

It was overriding what is a legitimate desire to protect and to preserve local environments that are important for supporting local biodiversity, local fauna and flora, as well as being extremely important to the community that had spent a lot of time planting in those dunes, weeding in those dunes and, of course, erecting those fabulous signs that warn of snakes. I know there are snakes there. I have never actually seen one. I have always regarded those signs as being more useful for deterring people from running through the dunes and causing chaos, but I believe that there are a few snakes there, and that is great. That is part of nature.

But the idea that you deal with the absence of sand on one beach by going to a small two-kilometre stretch and treating it effectively as a sand mine, with the amount of sand that was proposed to be moved in a two-year period, I think is not an environmentally sensitive approach. I was very pleased when, after a week of stand-off between the local community that was unhappy about the truck road being built and the contractors of the department who had been asked to build this road, the minister and the department found a way of managing that particular issue.

But there are more issues. We need to get sand onto West Beach. There is pretty serious damage that has been done to the southern Semaphore beach where there has long been sand mining as a result of the construction of the groyne at Point Malcolm. In the lee of that groyne—I think I am using the right nautical term—there is terrible damage that has been done to the dunes. In effect, the dunes have gone. You can now have the water come all the way up to the bike path and the grassed area which had been regarded as safe for people to use for recreation separate to the dunes. That now has been eroded as a result of the combination of the groyne and the sand mining that has been occurring.

That was one of the reasons we were so sceptical further north because we had seen it happen and that it was possible to do damage. Does that save West Beach? According to the environmental report, no, because the sand that would be moved down would wash off reasonably quickly. In fact, one of the contractors or possibly a member of the department said that it only needed to survive a couple of storms—that was all it was doing—while waiting for the external sand to come on. The proposition was that you wreck one beach in order to survive a couple of storms at another beach.

The idea of external sand coming in is a good one. It was done in the late 1990s and it is long overdue. I wish that the last government, my government, had done it and I think it is excellent that this government is going to do it. I do not quite understand why it is going to take so long to source the sand, and the proposition was to—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

Dr CLOSE: Well, it is sand. Does it take two years to find sand and dig it up? I do not think so. I think that there would be ways to expedite that if it were seen as a priority, and I hope that that will be happening. But I am also concerned about the sand pumping because surely one of the reasons that West Beach is deprived of sand is that the sand that used to come from further south is no longer coming because it is being pumped down again.

In our desire to have engineering solutions that are easy, are we creating more problems that then require more money to be spent? I would like to see a proper account of that, because certainly all the people in Semaphore who were protesting were extremely sympathetic to the need for Henley South, and West Beach in particular, to be looked after. So there is no sense that we only cared about our stretch of sand. The fact that an accommodation has been able to be found does suggest that we were right that it was an extremely blunt instrument that was being proposed to be used.

With those words, as I said, I support the motion. I particularly hope that, on the metropolitan coastline but also the full South Australian coastline, we can work on this more closely together on both sides of parliament to find solutions that are acceptable to all communities and that will manage the very significant changes that we will see to our coastline under every scenario for climate change.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (12:18): I rise today to support the motion brought forward by the member for Morphett, as follows:

That this house—

(a) recognises the significant asset that our coastline represents to the South Australian community and economy;

(b) acknowledges that preservation and protection of this precious natural resource will benefit generations to come; and

(c) acknowledges the Liberal government’s significant investment in the preservation of South Australia’s coastline.

Sir, as you are more than aware, this is an issue that I am significantly passionate about. Many who live in my local area rely in many ways on local beaches. They are the backbone of our local economy. They are the backbone of the social fabric that is the western suburbs—our surf clubs, our community hubs—and many of our sporting clubs are entirely located along the coastline. It is without a shadow of a doubt true to say that our suburbs come to life as soon as we start to hit summer. When the sun comes out, people start to come to the beach. We flock to those areas. That is very much at the core of what the western suburbs are all about.

The member for Morphett has very aptly described the commitment the government has made in regard to our metropolitan coastline, in particular the northern section of coastline running from Semaphore to West Beach. When we talk about the shift of sand down our metropolitan coastline, it is important to note that this is an entirely natural process. It is one that has happened for centuries and it is one that will continue to happen. It is not one that only happens in South Australia. Lateral drift happens along most coastlines that we are aware of. Different communities have decided to adapt and adjust to lateral drift by trying to ensure that beaches that have been utilised very well over the years are maintained for those local communities.

If we look at Queensland, there are significant issues around the Sunshine Coast area, in particular the Maroochy Surf Club and their beachfront, close to the Maroochy River, and also Kings Beach on the Sunshine Coast. If we look along the Gold Coast in particular, each and every year works are done to rectify lateral drift to ensure those beaches are appropriately maintained for generations to come. The solution to lateral drift is different depending on the community, the environment and what is deemed to be appropriate for different communities.

In some European countries, the solution has involved putting groynes down on the coast every 300 metres. It is not something that I imagine our community would be very fond of seeing. From a surf lifesaving perspective, it does not make our coastline very easy to use by any stretch of the imagination. I am not sure it is too appealing to look at. Within those groynes, with lateral drift we have a shift from one side to the other, so we end up with sand still building up and needing to be shifted, even when we look at a solution that involves groynes extending from our coastline every 300 metres.

South Australia traditionally has used a range of different technologies to deal with lateral drift over many, many years, when this was identified as an issue. We have used sand carting for a significant period of time in South Australia. We have, from time to time, done mass replenishments through the use of dredging equipment. However, in the last 10 years it was determined that we were having significant issues along our 28 kilometres of metropolitan coastline.

To that end, after the Glenelg Marina development had occurred, after the West Beach boat ramp was built, instead of having a 28-kilometre stretch of coastline, where sand shifted from the southern beaches to the northern beaches from Kingston Park down to Semaphore and Outer Harbor, we instead created a situation where there is a break in our metropolitan coastline—you could say two sections.

At that point in time, the former government put in a pipeline that ran from Glenelg to Kingston Park. That has been in place, as the member for Morphett rightfully acknowledged, for nearly six years now. In the transition from our southernmost beach, Kingston Park, which was just about entirely decimated by lateral drift over that period of time, we shifted sand through carting over a period of time to ensure that it was maintained to the extent that it could be. However, the introduction of that pipeline has significantly—significantly—improved the beaches at Kingston Park, at South Brighton, ensuring that the equilibrium is maintained within that southern section of beaches.

Those opposite did not determine that the northern section of beaches was important enough to have a pipeline. So we saw West Beach, the southernmost section now not having sand get to it, decimated. Over the last number of years, year on year, more and more sand has disappeared from West Beach to the point where small storm activity, such as we had on the weekend, puts West Beach in jeopardy. I feel sorry for South Australians. I feel sorry for those members of my community who have had to wait so long to see a long-term solution to this issue put in place, I really do.

I am very proud and happy that the Marshall Liberal government has invested the money necessary to ensure that there will be a long-term solution. I am very happy that the increased short-term solution—increasing the level of sand, the amount of sand coming in via our current carting activities—has been significantly increased and started for this summer. I am glad that that will continue into next summer. I am glad that there will be a significant replenishment made into West Beach, because this is just not about West Beach: this is about the whole section of northern beaches running from Semaphore to West Beach.

We have the appropriate volume of sand getting back to West Beach. It started there. Henley Beach South, certainly around the end of Lexington Street, has been significantly impacted, and that impact will continue to move north but for a long-term solution to this issue. Henley Beach will be next, and Grange will be after that.

If this decision had not been made, we would be putting the whole of our northern section of beaches in jeopardy. I congratulate the Premier, and I congratulate the Minister for Environment and Water on putting the money on the table to ensure that this solution is now in place. I know that my community is incredibly happy to see this. More broadly with respect to our whole coastline, those who use our beaches, and those who use our beaches only occasionally, will have certainty that those beaches will be there in the appropriate form for years to come. I only lament that it has taken so long to have this decision taken.

For the last six years, 100,000 cubic metres has been put in the pipeline at Glenelg and shifted to Kingston Park. We know that that works. I know that the shadow minister for environment raised the issue of an engineering solution, and to that I say: what is the alternate? The position of those opposite was to maintain the status quo. It was to keep trucks on beaches, to keep trucks coming to Semaphore, shifting sand for all of eternity. Without a decision that was the future: trucks continuing to go onto Semaphore beach, to go down to West Beach and go down to Henley Beach South for the foreseeable future.

I do not think that is acceptable, my community does not think that is acceptable, and I am sure that the member for Port Adelaide’s community does not think that is acceptable for the longer term. This is a good solution. I am very proud of the Marshall Liberal government for putting it in place, and I entirely support the member for Morphett's motion.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:27): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Insert:

(d) acknowledges there is a significant divide between spend on regional coastline infrastructure and projects versus those located in the metropolitan area.

While I have moved my amendment to the motion, there is a whole host of things that I agree with in the original motion, and that is why I have not amended paragraphs (a), (b) or (c). I have moved to insert paragraph (d). Paragraph (a) of this motion could easily have read 'recognises the significant asset that our metropolitan coastline represents to the city people of South Australia' and paragraph (c) could have read 'acknowledges the Liberal government's significant investment in the preservation of metropolitan coastlines.'

I am very interested in future contributions to this motion, particularly from regional members. The member for Flinders, I would suggest, would have the most coastline anywhere in South Australia if you take it from the Western Australian border through to the electorate of the member for Giles. Of course, then you have the electorate of the member for MacKillop down to my electorate, the seat of Mount Gambier. I am trying to point out to the government the trap of falling into a city-centric Liberal government, and I do so deliberately. Using this example of regional coastline, if you look at the map the coastline outlined is far superior in length and distance to the metropolitan coastlines mentioned by speakers today.

Of course, there has been a significant investment in the preservation of South Australia's metropolitan coastline. This year's budget allocated $52 million to the overall coastline of South Australia, with $48 million allocated for metropolitan coastlines, and I am not here arguing that that is not justified. We have to realise that the majority of people in South Australia live in metropolitan areas or peri-urban areas attached to Adelaide. But $4 million allocated to the rest of South Australia's coastline covering the entirety of the South Australian coastline is nowhere near good enough.

An amount of $28.4 million of that $48 million, over half of that, is for just one project: a sand recycling pipeline from Semaphore to West Beach. Again, that is a project I would support. However, we have other avenues of funding. When the Royalties for Regions policy was developed by the Liberal Party, it was meant to set up a fund for the regions. The intent of the Royalties for Regions program was to take mining royalties, acknowledging that all mining activity occurs in regional South Australia, and quarantine 30 per cent for regions' infrastructure spend.

We heard the Minister for Mining say just last week that they have had record revenues from the mining sector—some $300 million. As a rough rule of thumb, there would be $90-odd million sitting in a regional investment fund (Royalties for Regions). We then found out when the Auditor-General's Report came up later that day that no such fund has actually been established. Coastal management is a critical environmental, social and economic need. Sand carting is now a fact of life to protect beaches and stabilise foreshores.

However, the vast sums of money spent on sand carting and building infrastructure in the metropolitan region do not sit well with me when I look at regional projects that are of equal importance and in such dire need of attention. The fact that this pool of money is coming out of the solid waste levy is another bone of contention with my councils. The levy increase announced in this year's state budget was $110 per tonne on 1 July, followed by an increase to $140 per tonne on 1 January next year. In the regions, the levy is based on 50 per cent of the metro rate and I think it is important to point that out.

Regional councils around the state are being impacted by this hike, as have metropolitan councils. If the returns for councils were equally divided depending on levy contributions, that may be a fair assessment. But if you do the maths you find that regional communities are once again subsidising metropolitan projects. Councils have had to scramble to find the extra money in budgets, and some of them have been forced to pass it along to ratepayers.

When this was announced, most were in the final stages of adopting financial plans and were forced to make changes to accommodate the extra fee. The impact on Wattle Range Council is $20,000. They were only notified of the solid waste levy hike after they had adopted their budget. The Mount Gambier city council has taken another $60,000 hit. For regional councils, these are significant costs and money that would otherwise be directed into projects for the good of local communities.

Coastal protection is of immense importance for our state, but so is maintenance of vital coastal infrastructure. There are more than 5,000 kilometres of coastline in South Australia and the Limestone Coast region, which encompasses my electorate of Mount Gambier, which currently has urgent need for fund allocation. We have the largest rock lobster fleet in the Southern Hemisphere with a major safety problem, which I have outlined a number of times in this house.

The Port MacDonnell harbour is essential infrastructure for not only Port MacDonnell but the Limestone Coast and the state's rock lobster fishing industry. Roger Cutting, President of the Port MacDonnell Professional Fisherman's Association, has written to minister Stephan Knoll outlining the problems the local fleet is currently having due to a long-term build-up of sand and seaweed in the harbour. He has called it a 'matter of extreme urgency'.

The levels are so high that professional and recreational fishermen are having trouble refuelling, mooring and moving in and out of the harbour, and they are reporting engine damage due to weed ingestion. Roger goes on to say that in low tides boats simply cannot fill up with fuel. This is becoming a safety issue. The locals need to be able to use the harbour safely. He has received a response from the minister's office stating that it would take 12 months to get approval to find out where to best dispose of the dredging.

I speak not only for my electorate but for all regional electorates in South Australia. I refer to an article in The Advertiser from May, which outlines the dire condition of many of South Australia's regional jetties. There are 36 jetties and wharves across the state and, although they are owned by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, they are actually maintained by local councils under local lease arrangements.

Repair bills are starting to accumulate in excess of $16 million, and these costs are far beyond the reach of coastal councils. Over the last two years, Kingston District Council spent 37 per cent of its annual expenditure on marine infrastructure. In November last year, the state government gave $325,000 to eight South Australian councils to manage coastal risks and deal with erosion—seven of these councils were regional. Compare $48 million with $300,000 and it is not a fair assessment. With those words, I commend the amended motion to the house.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (12:37): I rise to support the amended motion. As someone from regional South Australia, I more than recognise the discrepancy in funding when it comes to supporting the regions compared with the metropolitan area. It is interesting to note that, of the $52 million that has been made available, $48 million is to be spent in the metropolitan area and $4 million is open to the metropolitan area and the regional areas to bid for. We do not even have exclusive use of that $4 million for 5,000 kilometres of coastline in regional South Australia.

I was incredibly fortunate, at the age of 10, to bowl up in Whyalla, so the sea and the coast became a part of my growing up. Clearly, the coast embodies incredibly significant environmental values, economic values and recreational values. I look at some of the improvements that have taken place over time in my community, a community with heavy industry that has a history of very significant pollution of the coastal environment.

Going back many years now, I have been involved in environmental issues in my community. I have been the chair of the Environmental Consultation Group now for more years than I care to remember. It brought together heavy industry, the community and the council to address environmental issues in a constructive way. One of the issues we faced was the loss of 20 square kilometres of seagrass beds in False Bay, near Whyalla, as a result of discharges into that bay from BHP and then OneSteel, predominantly in the form of ammonia, which encouraged epiphyte growth on seagrass beds.

It is good to see the progress that has occurred, with the massive reduction in ammonia discharge and the building of reed beds to partly address ammonia discharge, as well as a number of other activities that have been undertaken to reduce ammonia discharge, turbidity and heavy metals that were being discharged into the marine environment. As a result, there has been a somewhat patchy comeback in some of the seagrass beds that were lost.

The blue economy or blue carbon was mentioned, and seagrass beds obviously play an incredibly significant role in carbon capture and storage. People generally think that forests do the heavy lifting when it comes to carbon capture and storage but, on a per hectare basis, forests come significantly behind seagrass beds. If you look at the most prolific form of carbon capture and storage on the planet, it is actually tundra. We do not have any of that in Australia, but after tundra it is seagrass beds, mangroves and saltmarshes. These are incredibly important stores of greenhouse gases, so I would be a full-on supporter of anything that the government can do in terms of the marine environment and carbon capture and storage. I think that would be a very worthwhile initiative.

Clearly, I have the Northern Spencer Gulf in my electorate. I am fortunate enough to have part of the coastline, which is a low energy inverse estuary. It is an incredibly unique marine environment, and it has been recognised as such over many years. My coastline extends down to Cowell, where the economic advantage comes predominantly through oyster growers down at Cowell, as well as the charter industry, which has had a bit of a wrecking ball put through it without a thought-through plan or policy in place when it comes to support.

The coast is incredibly important. Obviously, GFG, as it now is, has an import/export facility at Whyalla with the inner harbour and the outer harbour. When pursuing and building on the hydrogen initiatives that the previous government commenced, one thing that the government needs to be mindful of is that the government actually owns a major export facility at Port Bonython, which Santos currently uses.

That facility is used nowhere near to capacity. The last figure I saw, which admittedly goes back a few years now, was about 30 per cent capacity at that particular jetty. If you were to replicate that, it would cost probably somewhere in the order of $750 million or maybe more in today's dollars. It would be a very expensive undertaking, but at that export facility for hydrocarbon products at Port Bonython you have the capacity in an area with fantastic grid connection, industrial infrastructure and amazing renewable energy resources, to make Whyalla the centre of hydrogen and potentially ammonia production in this state.

It would take hardly anything to be able to export ammonia from the hydrocarbon facility already in place at Whyalla. It always amazes me that we talk about replicating infrastructure elsewhere in the state when we already have an area with a massive comparative advantage staring us in the face. I do not say that in a parochial way—although there is an element of that—but it is a purely objective assessment when you look at what is in place at Port Bonython and at Whyalla. When we talk about hydrogen, it is one of those places that would have to be high on the list.

Unfortunately, when we were in government, there was all that uncertainty surrounding Whyalla, so the two companies that put in bids for some of the funding for hydrogen facilities were at Crystal Brook and at Port Lincoln. We did not have a company interested at the time in Whyalla because of some of the issues going on, but they are becoming settled. Of course, it is not just the potential for export from Whyalla, you have a potential customer with GFG if they do forward their plans about what they want to do about being carbon neutral. Of course, hydrogen is potentially a replacement for coke and coal as a reducing agent when it comes to iron production.

So much for some of the economic aspects. Recreationally, over the years, growing up on the coast, when it comes to fishing, when it comes to diving, when it comes to swimming, when it just comes to hanging around on the coast, it has been a big part of my life. Growing up in Whyalla, we would often escape to the mangrove system that had a number of saltwater creeks where the fishing was great before it was a protected zone. As kids, we would escape for days at a time, get a campfire going, stay overnight, catch flathead, catch flounder, catch a range of other species. It was the way that we grew up.

The member for Flinders has a fantastic coastline. One of the most enjoyable things was taking my kids down to the Lincoln National Park, Coffin Bay National Park, Sheringa, Locks Well and Streaky Bay to go fishing and camping. It is a glorious part of the world. When you go to places like Europe and go to their beaches littered with bodies on sunny days, seeing what we have here in this state, both in my electorate and the member for Flinders' electorate—and I am sure electorates throughout our state—we are truly blessed.

We have to look after our marine environment, and there are some major challenges, climate change being one of them, with ocean acidification, ocean warming and sea level rise. That will provide profound challenges if we do not seriously mitigate at a state, national and global level. With those few words, I will take my seat.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (12:47): It gives me great pleasure today to be able to come into the chamber and provide my support for the member for Morphett's original motion, recognising the very substantial role that our coastline plays in the lives of South Australians, socially, economically and first and foremost, of course, environmentally as well.

We have 5,067 kilometres of coastline in South Australia, and that is a figure that I regularly quote in this place. I quote it regularly because it is my way of recognising that it is such a vast part of our environment. It is diverse and it has the capacity to give us so much from an economic and recreational point of view. It attracts tourists to enjoy our state and it also provides an incredible area of habitat for our native flora and fauna.

Of that 5,067 kilometres of coastline, the vast majority is found in regional South Australia. I guess there are only around 100 kilometres, or maybe slightly less than that, that you could ever categorise as being part of the metropolitan coastline. When I became the shadow minister for environment in 2017, it was not difficult to do a scan across the horizon and realise that one of the areas that had had the least investment, the least care, the least interest and the least understanding from 16 years of Labor government was the state's fragile and precious coastline.

This area was crying out for policy innovation, financial investment and for the support of the state government of the day. It was not getting it from the Labor Party. In fact, it was an area of public policy that was left to languish. That surprised me, because the previous government was big on talking about climate change, big on the activism, big on the lists, icons and gestures, but not big on the practical outcomes on the ground.

One of the best ways to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change—particularly in South Australia, because of that immense coastline—is to invest in the resilience and vibrancy of the coastline from an environmental point of view and also undertake environmental works to protect our economic assets, whether they be coastal communities, ports that play a role in our economic development or a range of other tourism and natural assets. We went to the state election pledging $5.2 million towards coastal protection initiatives. That included a focus on replenishment at West Beach.

I acknowledge the vocal, consistent and creative advocacy from the member for Colton around that part of his electorate, which he knows is one of the most vulnerable areas off the metropolitan coastline. We also went to the election with a commitment to invest $1 million in seagrass restoration projects to improve knowledge and understanding about how to restore seagrasses in our gulf.

Seagrass has historically been such an important part of the gulf, but of course it was substantially degraded as a consequence of the European colonisation of South Australia. I am pleased to report that our seagrass restoration trials in Gulf St Vincent are well underway and are starting to show some real progress. I hope we can learn from that to see more and more seagrass restoration projects continue into the future.

We announced an amount of money towards wetland restoration and creation in the state. We also, I think quite uniquely—government do not do enough of this—announced that we would set up a fund for research and development around coastal activity, looking at ways to create and hold sand on the beach in an innovative way and ensure that we were looking at balancing the conservation with the economic development and social side as well. We wanted to ensure that those beaches under most pressure are sustained in a cutting-edge way.

We have partnered with local councils and with research and academic institutions to make sure that the best science is present in South Australia when managing our metropolitan coastline. We have been rolling out the expanded grants schemes in recent weeks. It has been great to see a number of grants go to councils across the state for research and development projects. However, we really upped the ante in the 2019-20 state budget, providing $52 million in funding towards a coastal protection initiative across the state.

This included, for the first time, a specific Regional Coast Protection Fund. We did this because under 16 years of Labor, there was no ring-fenced funding for coastal communities across this state. So, for the first time, we have a specific Regional Coast Protection Fund of $1 million each year. Previously, under Labor, it was $340,000-odd for the whole state per year; now we have this fund. We will be able to partner with local government and actually achieve outcomes on the ground across regional South Australia.

Is $1 million enough? How long is a piece of string. We could always do with more money for these environmental programs. Deputy Speaker, I know you represent a coastal community. I represent a coastal community and the quadrupling of funding for regional coastal projects is a far greater benefit than was ever provided under 16 years of Labor. They had $340,000, or thereabouts, a year. We have taken that to $1,340,000 a year. That is a substantial effort and we will continue to support regional coastal communities.

Of course, we will also focus on the particular challenges facing West Beach and Henley Beach South—communities that are under threat of being washed into the gulf as a result of very significant and problematic erosion. A great concern for this government is the loss of that coastal environment and recreational space and of course also a loss of economic infrastructure as well. This is what my department and I have been working on, along with the member for Colton. This government is backing the preservation of our metropolitan coastline, recognising what it is worth and putting in place this sand pumping pipeline, as well as a major external sand replenishment project.

What amazed me were the comments from the deputy leader earlier this morning that she does not want an engineering solution. She wants a natural solution. Why did the previous Labor government do work, which I congratulated them on, and put in place the pipeline between Glenelg and Kingston Park, a very successful project, which now the deputy leader has had some sort of epiphany about and does not support anymore? She does not want an engineering solution for the northern and central beaches. She was happy to have it for the southern beaches. I represent those beaches.

I know my communities are grateful for the investment of the previous government in that pipeline. Why is that now the wrong solution under this government? When the current Leader of the Opposition took that position, he said they were not going to be an opposition that opposed for the sake of opposing. This morning, we saw another example of the deputy leader using her position as both a local member and the deputy leader of the South Australian Labor Party to oppose a really good project—a project that will build climate resilience into our metropolitan coastline. It will help us deal with the impacts of increasing storm events.

It will help us deal with rising sea levels and will build lasting resilience in Adelaide's coastline, coupled with a quadrupling of the funding available for regional coastal protection projects. This government is backing a climate-resilient coastline around South Australia, all 5,060 kilometres of it. It is precious. We need to look after it. We need it to be there for future generations and we recognise just how important it is environmentally, socially and economically.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (12:57): I also rise to thank the member for Morphett for bringing this motion to the house. I wholly support his motion recognising how important the assets of our coasts are. My electorate is very privileged to have an enormous number of assets in those beaches. From west to east, we start with Parsons Beach and Waitpinga Beach, which are great surf and fishing beaches. They are really dangerous beaches, though. Sadly, lives have been lost there. They need to be respected.

We see the beautiful Waitpinga Cliffs, as we work our way across the coastline. We get to Kings Head, which is an important feature on the coastline, as it turns a bit away from being totally exposed to the Southern Ocean. Kings Beach is a lovely, quiet little beach tucked in behind Kings Head. You need to walk there, as you cannot drive there. It is a beautiful part of the world. Then we move across to Petrel Cove. Petrel Cove Beach is another dangerous beach, but a fascinating place in the electorate. It is an amazing place of beauty in the electorate of Finniss. Then we have Rosetta Head, more commonly known as The Bluff. It is a very distinct feature in Victor Harbor and a beautiful part of our coastline.

We then move into the Encounter Bay area and Davenport Anchorage, where boats can come and anchor off Granite Island safely. We then have Policeman Point, Victor Harbor Beach, Hayborough Beach, Oliver's Reef, Dump Beach, Chiton Rocks, Boomer Beach, Knights Beach, Rocky Bay, Lady Bay and Horseshoe Bay in Port Elliot, which is a lovely part of the world. We then have Crockery Bay, Fisherman Bay, Basham Beach, Middleton Beach, Surfers Beach and Goolwa Beach. They are all lovely parts of the world. Five miles off the coastline from Goolwa Beach is where Baudin and Flinders met. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

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