HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-09-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Aquaculture (Tourism Development) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 June 2021.)

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay) (11:10): I just want to continue my remarks on this bill. For this side of the house, there are great opportunities in assisting our agricultural industry to grow from both a trade perspective and a tourism perspective. South Australia is already renowned for our clean, green produce and our seafood in particular. I can see tremendous opportunities in this area if it is properly managed. In principle, we support the bill in this chamber; however, we reserve our position between the houses to propose amendments. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:10): I certainly rise to support this bill, the Aquaculture (Tourism Development) Amendment Bill 2021. I will go through some of the direct particulars in relation to this legislation, which I believe will be a great boon to South Australian tourism, especially in this COVID time. What we are seeing with restricted and in some places almost nil border access to South Australia, with the excellent COVID management we are running in this state, are these internal tourism drawcards that I do not think we can have enough of.

In regard to the West Coast, Eyre Peninsula is a fantastic part of the world. It is so far from Adelaide—and the member for Flinders would understand this—that you can easily forget about Adelaide when you are on the West Coast and enjoying life in that community, which has many assets. You can go from Port Lincoln, obviously on the seafront there, and then go up around either coast. There are many amenities along the way in places such as Tumby Bay, Smoky Bay, Streaky Bay and Ceduna.

You can get around to Fowlers Bay, which is a lovely little gem that I have found in the last five or six years. It is a great part of the world and these places are being discovered by so many more people because instead of those billions of dollars going overseas, with travellers and tourists heading overseas, they are finding the real gems inside our state. Certainly, that is where these tourism developments come in so importantly in regard to aquaculture, which is an ever-burgeoning industry in this state.

I commend all the operators in whatever line of aquaculture they are in. It can present a lot of issues, and a lot of management is involved in getting things right, whether it be oyster farming or fish farming in particular, making sure the nutrients are right, making sure the flows through large tanks are correct, nutrition, getting rid of waste, etc.

Another thing that happens on the West Coast in particular is the harvesting of tuna. It has gone a long way from pole fishing off boats back in the day to essentially going out in the gulf and way out to the border of Western Australia, out Eucla way, and netting large schools of tuna, towing them back to Port Lincoln and farming them in pens, which have also had to put up with ingress of predators. They developed technology to get around that and that is great to see, especially in light of the tuna industry's recent progress with more tuna being sold to Japan, noting the recent difficulties we have had with trade with China.

Certainly in regard to this legislation, this bill does seek to provide a one-stop shop point of entry for agricultural operators, so that it streamlines the application process for establishing tourism-related structures that are directly associated with the farm production.

This bill will make it easier for aquacultural operators to obtain approvals for those structures, which are oyster-tasting platforms right out on the water and they will provide certainty for existing operators and encourage further investment in aquaculture-related tourism. I think that it is absolutely vital to value-add to this industry—which is already a successful industry—but anyone involved in primary industries will know that if you can add a dollar and keep a dollar you are so much better off in putting that directly into your local community and into maybe exporting that work interstate or overseas.

There is certainly an emerging regional tourism experience for tours and on-water tasting of oysters at the state's successful Eyre Peninsula oyster aquaculture operations. We have businesses—for example, such as Oyster HQ at Coffin Bay and South Australian Premium Oysters at Smoky Bay—that offer a unique tourism destination experience, where people can enjoy freshly harvested oysters and refreshments on platforms in the water, which are providing a drawcard to attract visitors to their regions.

These tourist platforms are currently not lawfully approved under planning and development legislation. I know that probably everyone here has had something to do with their own individual experience with getting things approved under planning and development legislation over time. We have recently streamlined the process—which I commend—that came under the planning act, which was reversed in 2016 by former Minister Rau, the former member for Enfield at the time.

There can be some challenges. You can have things that are not zoned, you can go through a process to get them approved—and that is an extra process and so it should be—but anything that can streamline the process, such as this legislation, I really commend. Operators have, in light of that, raised concerns with the government that the processes to obtain proper approvals for such developments are not clear despite engaging with multiple agencies.

Under the current legislation, proponents are required to separately seek development consent under the Planning Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 from the Attorney-General's Department in the Planning and Land Use Services division and seek an authority to construct on the seabed under the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993 from the Department for Infrastructure and Transport.

This is in addition to requiring aquaculture infrastructure approvals and licence condition approvals from the Department of Primary Industries and Regions under the Aquaculture Act 2001. Under the Aquaculture Act 2001, the responsible minister has the power to assess and approve applications for the construction of infrastructure on the seabed for the purposes of farming aquatic organisms or aquaculture such as finfish sea cages and oyster farms, which obviously includes post and long lines.

This process includes extensive consideration of environmental impacts, referrals to the Environment Protection Authority and undertaking ecologically sustainable development risk assessments. However, one thing that the Aquaculture Act 2001 does not currently provide is a process for the approval of the structures which are associated with the aquaculture business but which are not directly required for the farming of seafood species.

What this bill proposes to do is provide like-for-like approval powers to the minister responsible for the Aquaculture Act 2001 for aquaculture-related tourism. That relates to the structures where they are established inside an approved aquaculture zone, as exists for aquaculture farming structures.

The Department of Primary Industries and Regions will consult with all relevant agencies in relation to aquaculture tourism structure proposals, as per the current requirements for consulting on aquaculture farming structure proposals. One would think that would go side by side, that if there is a new development for a farm, and they are thinking about doing a tourism proposal as well, that consultation goes along side by side to streamline that process.

This is a minor amendment to the act that will reduce red tape and frustration for aquaculture development proponents and support an emerging tourism sector in regional South Australia. As part of the bill, it will provide for the establishment of regulations that will stipulate what types of tourism developments are not to be covered by this streamlined one-stop shop approvals process.

The bill also makes a number of consequential amendments and, consistent with existing provisions in the Aquaculture Act 2001 for carrying out unauthorised aquaculture activities, a maximum penalty of $35,000 will apply for carrying out an unauthorised aquaculture tourism development. Should this bill progress through the parliament, the government will work with Oyster HQ and SA Premium Oysters to become compliant with the new requirements, providing them with the certainty operators have been seeking.

I really take my hat off to people in the fishing industry generally, whether it is finfishing, net fishing, fish farms or oyster farms, which is what we are talking about here today. There is a lot of investment, a lot of risk and, as with any primary production, the income from these sorts of proposals does not just fall at your feet. There is obviously a lot of risk. Over time, many of these farming practices, especially with finfish, and farming fish in tanks can be fraught with a whole range of issues, and I saw some happen many years ago now.

Heading towards 18 or 20 years ago, at a little place called Bedford, which is a little site just outside Cooke Plains in my electorate not far from where I live at Coomandook, there was some fish farm work there because there is quite saline water right throughout our district. It is not good enough to irrigate, and there are little pockets at Cooke Plains, just to the east of me but not very far away.

It is quite salty and a lot of work was done in farming fish. I cannot remember offhand what they were, but it went on for several years and I would have to check if any infrastructure is left out at the site. I know at least one operator, a couple of brothers I believe, set up an operation under that and invested a lot of money. I do not believe it was quite as successful as they had hoped, but that is the level of risk people are prepared to take to invest in industry and get on board.

In regard to oysters and oyster farming, which is a process that has gone on for many years, I remember that I went over there when I was the shadow spokesman for fisheries way back in either my first or second term. It was classic: out on a little boat, we had a guy who operates from Port Lincoln who takes video footage for Channel 7, and we were there shucking oysters down on the boat live on camera. They were straight out of the water, absolutely fantastic and fresh, and really did the job.

This is a similar experience, but you will not be out in a boat; you will be on a structure that I am sure will be built adjacent to the processing premises these companies will have and not too far from these oyster farms out of the water. It is something to see, whether you are at Coffin Bay or Smoky Bay or other areas on Eyre Peninsula, how these farms are set up. As I said, they go through all the approvals, through the Environment Protection Authority, to put them in place.

Fishing is not without its struggles. When I was the shadow spokesman, the former minister at the time, the former member for Mount Gambier, Rory McEwen, was going through a process. He said, 'We are going to double their licence fees.' It caused an uproar. I am not sure if his maths was so hot because the fees were actually quadrupled. I went over to the West Coast and we had meetings with hundreds of people involved in the industry. Thankfully, we got a result and pulled those fees right back to a far more manageable position so that people were not taxed out of existence and so that they could have a far more successful outcome.

This is another factor that these people are putting in place. There are some real entrepreneurs over there on the West Coast, including Gary Zippel. I know him; he went to school with one of my brothers at Urrbrae. A lot of these people are thinking outside the square, not only with setting up farming operations but now to add this bit where you can have a platform out amongst the farm and I am assuming you can sit there with your legs in the water or not—it depends on how the structure is set up, I suppose—and have a beautiful, pleasant day.

All of these locations around the West Coast are magnificent spots to get away and to have this opportunity to take in some of the fantastic oysters that are farmed and grown in this state. Obviously, Coffin Bay oysters, all of these oysters, are world renowned. When borders open up, which they will one day, we will be able to have that overseas opportunity for more people to salivate over this produce. As I indicated, there is a great resurgence where people can and do tour throughout the state.

As I have indicated in this place before, I think it was last October that I went north of Hawker and it was almost like Hindley Street, the amount of traffic up there. Trying to get a coffee at the stop at Hawker, there was quite a queue, which is quite different to other times I have been through the Flinders Ranges or the Far North. That is a good thing to see because in all the troubles that we are having with COVID—and there are plenty of people who are suffering, and sadly some businesses have fallen down—there has certainly been lots of support from us as a state government to try to minimise that, and also from the federal government, which has put in over $300 billion in supporting people.

The real winners here are ventures in South Australia. I think that will go on for many years to come, sometimes because people will have to because they cannot go anywhere else, quite frankly, or it is just too risky. They can see the great gems that we see right throughout our state. It interests me sometimes when you see groups of people in Broken Hill. It is great for people to travel, but then they find that it is difficult to come home. We do what we can as local members, and I am sure there are a lot of local members on both sides of the house who get in involved in that process.

In terms of opportunities, you can go down the South-East. I know Robe in the member for MacKillop's electorate, which is normally quiet over winter, has had quite a season. It does get windy and cold at Robe. I was only there last week and did it blow. It certainly shows what can happen in these tough times. So right throughout the South-East, down through Robe and Mount Gambier, and then you can come up through to the Mallee areas and Upper South-East, up around my electorate, where people can go to national parks. You can go through Ngarkat, for instance. The Border Track has been a great drawcard for many people, over against the Victoria border.

Obviously, we have great drawcards around the place like The Bend Motorsport Park, which has the classic cars on Sunday. At Murray Bridge, we have the fantastic, new six-storey Bridgeport Hotel, which is absolutely magnificent. You move up through the state to the magnificent river through my electorate, through the Riverland, right up through the Flinders to the Far North and Innamincka and then across to the other side of the state as well.

There is a lot of opportunity here in South Australia. I think the more we can do to enhance that opportunity, which is part of this legislation, in regard to aquaculture businesses and the sooner this is fast-tracked through both houses of parliament so we can assist those businesses to further maximise their investment in this wonderful state, the better it will be, not just for those people and those businesses that take those risks but for the state and the economy as a whole. I commend the bill.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:31): I rise today to support the Aquaculture (Tourism Development) Amendment Bill. I do so wholeheartedly as the member in this place who represents the vast majority of aquaculture ventures in the state. It is no secret that 90 per cent of the oysters produced here in South Australia—it may even be 95 per cent—come from the beautiful waters around Eyre Peninsula, from Cowell all the way round to Denial Bay in the Far West.

I will talk more about that a little bit later because it is not just about oysters, although that is the first thing that comes to mind in relation to aquaculture and aquaculture production. In dealing with aquaculture, we are also talking about mussels, abalone, tuna and any other opportunities that might arise. The member for Hammond spoke about some dryland aquaculture ventures.

This bill particularly proposes amendments to the Aquaculture Act 2001. It will allow the Department of Primary Industries and Regions, on behalf of the minister responsible for the Aquaculture Act, to assess and approve applications for building marine tourism structures related to aquaculture within dedicated aquaculture zones. There are 12 aquaculture zones around this state. They are contained within coastal regions such as the Limestone Coast, Yorke Peninsula and Eyre Peninsula on the West Coast. Of course, for the last two areas I am the representative member.

It will make it easier certainly for the South Australian aquaculture industry to expand into tourism. A number of aquaculture sites have already been extended to accommodate some tourism. It will make any new entrants more easily able to gain approval for what they do. I do know that for the two that I am currently thinking of, a venture at Coffin Bay and another at Smoky Bay, it was a vast amount of work and a vast amount of red tape for both of those ventures to gain approval ultimately, but I am sure it was worth it. Both are enjoying success.

People realise there is nothing better than sitting out on an oyster lease and shucking fresh oysters straight out of the sea, as fresh as they can possibly be. Often, it is complemented with a glass of Eyre Peninsula riesling, dare I say. There is nothing better than to get out onto an oyster lease on a barge, see how the operation works, hear from the operators themselves about the challenges and the rewards that are available in that industry.

It has not been all beer and skittles for the oyster industry, of course. Three years ago Pacific oyster mortality syndrome hit. It did not come to South Australia but it arrived in Tasmania, and Tasmania at that time was the sole source of spat for Pacific rock oysters for South Australian growers. That border was closed immediately, so our oyster growers in South Australia were without spat for some time. They need spat to put out on their racks and begin the growth process to ultimately get oysters to a size where they are saleable and can get to market.

Two things happened from that. The first was that oyster growers were severely hit and their businesses were severely affected, but ultimately—and I will give credit where credit is due; the previous Labor government was very supportive of this, as were we from opposition—we helped establish oyster hatcheries in South Australia. We now have a number around the state, mostly on Eyre Peninsula, one being combined with an abalone hatchery. In difficult times, people think laterally and often people do not change until they have to, but we are now totally self-sufficient in spat production in South Australia, so that has provided some surety to our oyster growers in relation to a long-term supply of spat. I am thinking that it has probably reduced the cost somewhat too.

The next thing that happened for our oyster growers, our aquaculture industry and many industries, full stop, was the arrival of COVID into Australia and around the world, and of course that impacted people's ability to, in the first instance, go out and eat at restaurants. It also changed the dynamics for those aquaculture producers who were exporting overseas, because the market dynamics changed significantly, not the least being the availability of readily reliable air freight, which is absolutely necessary for fresh seafood to get to overseas markets, primarily in East Asia but some further to the Middle East and also into Europe.

The member for Hammond spoke about adding value to primary production businesses, and I fully concur with him. Certainly coming from an agricultural background, the ultimate goal for many producers was to be able to add value to their product and increase the profitability of their businesses. That certainly is what some growers have been able to do, and the amendments to this bill will provide an easier opportunity through the cutting of red tape and a more streamlined approvals process for other growers to get the opportunity.

Another thing that happened with COVID is that we saw a lot of intrastate travel, and anecdotally I heard was that on about the June long weekend in 2019 there seemed to be a lift in localised tourism. Certainly, places like Tumby Bay, Cowell, Coffin Bay, Streaky Bay and out to Ceduna saw an increase in tourists, often from suburban or metropolitan Adelaide, many of whom had not been to Eyre Peninsula. They saw what a delight it is, and I am sure that as a result they will return. So we have had a busy time.

At the same time, other tourist operators, those more reliant on international visitors, saw a significant drop-off in their patronage, and I know that they are still suffering in that light. But we live in a changed world and, like all things, it will pass, but things probably will not ever get back to what we knew as normal and there will be a new normal.

Aquaculture is the fastest growing livestock industry in Australia and is expected to increase in value nationally to $2 billion by 2027, which is really only six years away, and it is all on the back of increased global demand. South Australia is recognised as a world leader in the ecologically sustainable development of aquaculture and currently has the only dedicated aquaculture legislation of its kind in Australia with our current Aquaculture Act, which we are seeking to amend to allow aquaculture producers, should they wish, to venture into tourism.

I mentioned earlier that it is not just about oysters, but that is the one that comes to mind. Of course, on Eyre Peninsula we also farm mussels. There is now land-based abalone, tuna ranching has developed and little boutique industries, such as tourism industries and dining experiences, have developed around that aquaculture. This will give those the opportunity to expand should they wish—always looking for opportunities.

The tuna industry in Port Lincoln is celebrated by the annual Tunarama event, the first of which was held in 1961, which really celebrates the importance of that fishery to Port Lincoln. Port Lincoln is a fishing town—there is no doubt about that—but primarily it is a tuna town, and it remains primarily a tuna town. Unfortunately, Tunarama was cancelled last year, and I understand that this week there is a meeting of the committee to determine whether the next Tunarama, scheduled for the long weekend in January next year, is to go ahead or not. I am sure they will make the right decision. There will be lots of things to assess, but I am sure they will make the right decision.

We have recently heard that the Oysterfest at Ceduna has had to be cancelled, all as a result of the risk COVID brings to gatherings and celebrations such as these. The Oysterfest celebrates the oyster industry on, in this case, the Far West Coast. Places such as Streaky Bay, Haslam, Smoky Bay and Denial Bay feed into that Oysterfest, with people coming from far and wide to enjoy the products. In a way, I guess that is a tourism offshoot of the oyster industry as well; however, this amendment really is about those who want to develop tourism within their aquaculture site, within the lease they hold.

I am more familiar with Coffin Bay than the other places, although I know them all well now, purely because of my proximity to Coffin Bay and the fact that we often spent summer holidays there as kids. What a delight that was.

It is worth recalling the early days of the oyster industry in Coffin Bay. In the very early days, it was discovered that there was a naturally occurring oyster present in the waterways, the inlets, of Coffin Bay. It is an estuary system with any number of bays and inlets, and an ideal habitat for oysters. There was a naturally occurring oyster known as the angasi that the early settlers stumbled upon and quite quickly began to harvest, using small ketches and sail, dredging the bottom.

Coffin Bay was named after Isaac Coffin, a great supporter of Matthew Flinders and later an admiral in the Royal Navy, becoming Sir Isaac Coffin. It was named not as the result of someone's untimely death during Flinders' expedition but, rather, after a supporter of his. The first settlement there was known as Oyster Town, and it was just a conglomeration of shanties and seafaring types who dredged the bays and dredged up the oysters.

They put them into wheat sacks, sewed them up, took them by dray overland to Port Lincoln where they went on a ketch to Port Adelaide, where they were sold as a relatively cheap source of protein to the small population that existed in Adelaide at that time. I recall a fellow by the name of Morrie Hurrell, who was the patriarch of a famous fishing family in Coffin Bay. He is long dead now, but I remember him as an old man when I was a boy. He was old enough to have worked on those ketches, dredging for the angasi oysters.

It is probably no surprise to people now viewing it in a historical sense to discover that they actually fished out the native oyster, completely depleted the bays of the angasi oyster. So the industry closed, and Oyster Town eventually became Coffin Bay and the hub for finfish fishing, particularly whiting and other finfish, which found a ready market as well.

It was in the early seventies when the first oyster lease, the first oyster farm, was established in Coffin Bay. It was right within what we call Coffin Bay proper, where the shacks, homes and settlement now is. I remember, as a boy, when it was installed. For many years, it was the only oyster farm in the vicinity and just happened to occur where freshwater entered the saltwater of Coffin Bay and provided this beautiful habitat for growing oysters. They did not farm the angasi, the local native oyster; they actually discovered that the Pacific oyster was eminently suited to the waterways, and grew well. In fact, they are filter feeders and there was an ample supply of nutrients within Coffin Bay, as there are within the other bays around the state.

In around 1990, some others decided to experiment with oysters further out in different waters, still within the Coffin Bay estuary itself, and slowly the industry has grown from there. Interestingly, that very first oyster farm still is in place. It is not a commercial venture as such, but there is a tourist operation working that particular farm now. It is known as Oyster HQ, and they take visitors out onto the farm with waders. I recommend that all should do it if they have the opportunity. You wade out, you shuck oysters, you taste and you hear the history of the industry. It is a great opportunity to see what can be achieved in relation to tourism as it sits within the aquaculture industry.

There are other opportunities, I am sure, for people to expand. Who knows what the future might bring? I fully support any opportunity for streamlining the approvals process, for cutting red tape and giving opportunities to people who really have done the hard yards and established businesses in primary production industries, which is never easy. There is always great expense when establishing these businesses and ongoing expenses. Often, they are labour intensive but the rewards are there and this gives growers another opportunity. Who knows what it might bring in relation to mussels, tuna and abalone in the future?

So I commend the bill to the house. I congratulate the minister on bringing it to the house and look forward to the passage of the bill and the opportunities it will bring, not just for aquaculture producers around the state but, most particularly, in my case at least, on Eyre Peninsula.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM (Finniss—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (11:47): Firstly, I would like to thank the speakers on this bill: the members for Ramsay, Hammond, Flinders and, many weeks ago, the member for Chaffey. This is an important bill to enable these aquaculture leases to progress down the path of the opportunity that exists there for tourism. It is very much about making it easier here in South Australia for people to expand into tourism in the aquaculture industry.

At the moment, it is a very complicated process of making sure you get the approvals from many departments if you want to enter this space. Firstly, you need your aquaculture licence to be operating coming from PIRSA; then, if you want to do tourism on there, you may need to go to the EPA; you may need to go to the Department for Environment and Water or the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, where there would be issues around navigation; and you would also need to go to the Attorney-General's Department in relation to planning issues. So this is a very complicated piece of process that needs to be followed through to get these structures in place in aquaculture leases.

We have seen a couple in operation. Being able to sit out on the water eating oysters, having a glass of wine, enjoying the water and enjoying the ambience of where the oysters are grown is a great opportunity. Listening to the member for Flinders talk about his part of the world and the history lessons around Coffin Bay and its naming was a fascinating insight into that part of the world. It is certainly a beautiful part of South Australia and an example of what is available for us in South Australia.

The changes will very much allow us to make sure that we are able to make it easier for these wonderful businesses that are operating out there. Aquaculture is such an important part of the South Australian economy. We have seen significant expansions in this space, particularly in the last 12 months or so, in returns to the economy. There are over a thousand direct jobs involved in aquaculture, plus another 1,500 flow-on jobs that exist for aquaculture businesses operating in South Australia. It is a great industry. It underpins our seafood industries going forward, as we are able to take advantage of the things that we do well, the environments we have in South Australia and what we are able to achieve.

This is just the natural extension, putting facilities out on the tuna cages in the areas off Port Lincoln and being able to have experiences out there watching how the fish are fed and reared through the stages on those tuna rings. There are real opportunities there, such as, as I mentioned, having oysters sitting in the oyster fields. These are wonderful parts of South Australia that we can enjoy, and enjoy to the fullest, by having a simple mechanism for people to go through to apply for these opportunities.

I guess the key thing is making sure that this is simple. Coming to one department rather than many is certainly going to enable people to make sure that they can get through the process. Having to go through the current situation, where you may need to go to multiple departments to get approvals, you may get rejection at one and approval at all the others, which then leads to the frustration of having to go through that process. This will enable us to consolidate all that so that they will find an appropriate way to make sure that we are able to underpin the industry going forward.

The importance, though, is that we do not compromise the approval process as well. It will certainly see the referrals still going through to those agencies of interest. We do not want people just whacking up whatever on the water. It needs to meet the building codes. We do not want people putting toilet facilities out on the water that are not appropriate. They need to meet the EPA requirements. It is making sure that those requirements are still being met but making it so much easier for people as they are making those applications, so that, rather than going to multiple points of entry, they can have a single point of entry.

It is really important that we continue to work with the aquaculture industry as it grows and see what new opportunities are out there. To me, there is a real interest in this space. Currently, we have 12 aquaculture zone policies located in regional coastal areas of the state, including the Limestone Coast, Yorke Peninsula and, in the member for Flinders' area, Eyre Peninsula and the West Coast. As the member for Flinders stated, he certainly has the bulk of the opportunity in this space. The waters there are probably more protected than some of those down on the Limestone Coast, for example, but there is a real opportunity for development.

We also need to make sure that this is a cost-effective way of going forward, ensuring that we do not see a cost burden that is unreasonable. We need to make sure we continue to manage keeping the red tape and the costs down for these areas.

The infrastructure related to these facilities is very unknown as to what is required for these new and emerging spaces. We do not know exactly what people's ideas are going to be coming forward, so we need to make sure that we have the opportunity to understand that and make sure that we can facilitate going forward with those new and exciting opportunities.

We must also remember that we need to make sure that we maintain its importance, that we protect the environment itself and that we do not put risks out there. We need to make sure that there are no navigational risks that are currently covered by others. All those things are part of the process of approval, but we need to make sure as we go forward that we are able to make it easier for people to get these tourism activities up and going. With that, I thank those who made comments in relation to the bill and look forward to it progressing to the next stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I thank the minister for the briefing provided to the opposition. There were some answers provided to questions taken on notice from that briefing, but we would like to have them on the public record so we will be asking some of them again here. In particular, we want to ask about where the push for this bill came from.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I have been informed that it has been driven very much by the current proponents of tourism activities in this space, who have been frustrated by the processes of bringing this forward.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, this is something we look forward to looking at because, as shadow minister for tourism, the opportunity to provide unique opportunities within our different regions is something we look forward to doing. The questions that I have, and some of the issues that have been raised by the different groups, are: is this bill actually supported by the Environmental Protection Authority? Do they have some concerns and, if so, have those concerns been alleviated?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you very much for the question. Yes, the EPA were consulted and are supportive of this bill. It is very important that we continue to have the EPA involved in this space and that the requirements facing these proposed developments into the future meet the same requirements they would have under the old structures and the need to meet the EPA requirements.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My concern is, and obviously this is a normal question that we would ask, but there does seem to be, in this instance, more concern because there is a sense of urgency around the fact that this has been brought forward to the house, and as I understand it, there are two operations out there that perhaps this will be retrospective for. Of course, it is important that we make sure that we are crossing the t's and dotting the i's because we would like this to flourish and we would like this to grow.

It is not clear to me regarding the consultation that you have had with different groups. Could you detail the consultation you have had, not just with peak bodies but with conservation groups as well. Also, I am keen to understand if you have had any consultation with local governments.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you for the question. I am informed there has been consultation with the Department for Environment and Water, the EPA, the Department for Infrastructure and Transport, and the Attorney-General's Department. There have not been consultations with local governments, as local governments do not cover the water areas in this respect; and no, there has not been any consultation with the NGOs in relation to the environmental groups, etc.

The CHAIR: Final question, member for Ramsay.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I seek some clarification. It is very concerning to me that you have not had any conversations—I think there is an oysters progress association. We obviously have an incredibly active aquaculture industry. In fact, I think you were on radio just yesterday talking about how important it is. Can you just detail again the fact that you have not had any consultation with those peak bodies or associations involved in the industry. You might also detail whether you had any conversations with the Tourism Industry Council of South Australia.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that we did consult with the aquaculture industry itself. It was more around the environmental groups that we had not had consultation with.

Ms MICHAELS: Given the extensive reform of the planning system over a number of years that has really just come into play, why would we, at this point in time, so quickly pull out this sort of development from that entire system?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: They key thing here in part of this piece of legislation is to streamline it to make it easier for these particular circumstances. These are operating in a completely different space from normal land-based approvals. These are just within the aquaculture zones that are required to be licensed to operate in those aquaculture zones. This is literally bringing everything into that one approval spot. They are seeking to get approval to be operators in the aquaculture space, but they can also now seek, if this passes, to have their tourism approvals, whether it be structural, if that is what they are needing to do. Not everything will require a structure. It is about streamlining it so that everything comes through the one-stop shop.

Ms MICHAELS: For those development things that do require a structure, are you saying the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act does not have a streamlined process after all the reforms?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: It is about bringing all the points of contact to one spot. For anyone wanting to make an application to operate in this space it means that, if they are going to operate in the aquaculture space, at the same time they can apply for aquaculture tourism, which will then go through the assessment process, which includes the building requirements and approval within PIRSA rather than having to go to different agencies. It is all about streamlining for these businesses.

Ms MICHAELS: Can you explain to me how aquaculture zones interact with marine parks and how aquaculture tourism structures have been approved in aquaculture zones to date?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: In relation to marine parks, as I said, there are 12 current aquaculture zones in place. They are areas that are chosen for aquaculture. They take into consideration marine parks and their locations, the environments required, etc. The interaction is as needed, understanding what is there. These facilities and this bill will apply only to aquaculture zones themselves. Can you please repeat the second half of your question?

Ms MICHAELS: How have tourism structures in the aquaculture zones been approved to date?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Currently, the process to get approval is to go to multiple agencies to get approval for all the different things that you might require, whether it be the EPA or the Attorney-General's Department or Planning. It needs to go to all of those different agencies as well as having the aquaculture approvals required under PIRSA. My understanding is that there are currently two in operation.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: In terms of the cost-recovery arrangements, in the written response to opposition questions you stated that currently the minimum development approval fee would be $1,220 and could be more subject to the cost of the development, as various fees are a percentage of the development cost. In point 3 of the letter to the shadow minister you stated that, by policy decision, these costs will not exceed existing application and annual fees as apply under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. For the public record, can you confirm that the minimum fees for development approval will not increase under this new proposed system, that the annual fees for seabed licences will not increase under this new proposed system, and that there will be no additional type of fee?

The CHAIR: Member for Mawson, we are of course dealing with clause 1, which is the title. It is usual for the opposition to ask questions about consultation. I am prepared to accept it this time. There will be ample opportunity as we go through for members to find the appropriate clause, but the minister can answer that if he wishes.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Obviously, we think this legislation has somewhat been rushed in. I think the intention of it is positive, and I think we have a lot of opportunity in the future to expand the offering of tourism products and services in this field. In fact, I think it is one area where South Australia can stand up very proudly and share what we do with the rest of Australia and the world. Minister, can you talk us through when you envisage this will come into effect, and what lead time is needed to change the processes?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: It is very hard to put a time line on this. It certainly depends on its passage through both chambers. There is also some work that needs to be done on the aquaculture regulations in relation to this that will need to commence immediately on the passing of this bill.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In your second reading speech, minister, you said:

PIRSA will then progressively review all current aquaculture zone policies and consult with industry to determine if any relevant provisions governing aquaculture-associated tourism developments are required and, if so, undertake the prescribed amendment process under the Aquaculture Act.

If this is the situation, how can it then be cost neutral to PIRSA when that level of action is then necessary and required by the department, and how will you resource it within the department?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As part of normal operations within PIRSA, the review of aquaculture regulations occurs, so this can occur within that normal structure of review and assessment of regulations.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As just a clarification on that, when will you proceed with the next review?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that currently the Lower Eyre Peninsula policy is being reviewed. There is no defined time frame on the review of these policies, but it is an ongoing process.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: As I understand it, while we have our 12 aquaculture zones, there are some pilot aquaculture zones. I stand to be corrected if that is not true. The question I have is: will this be enacted on those pilot zones?

We have said quite clearly that we think this is an opportunity that could be pursued, but obviously those pilot aquaculture zones are pilots because they have not been determined to be ongoing at this point. Given that you can have up to a 30-year lease for some kind of tourism development, there are some concerns over whether that is going be in a pilot aquaculture zone.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that the pilots are not aquaculture zones: they are pilots and they are not part of that process. Aquaculture zones go through a very rigorous assessment on their establishment, including consulting with different agencies around effects on environment, etc. Anything outside those aquaculture zones is not covered by this bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In clause 4, where it talks about some of the definitions around those industries and parts of this bill, my question is: how many aquaculture licence holders do you anticipate will apply for this tourism development approval? Perhaps within that answer you could talk about how many different businesses already have an aquaculture licence, and therefore how many potentially could be, and how many you expect.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed there are currently 423 aquaculture licences in the marine sector and that, currently, as I stated before, there are only two that have these facilities. It is very hard to anticipate the uptake and, of those 423, how many may wish to enter the space.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just for clarification, how will you make those 423 aquaculture licence holders aware? Obviously, I think this is potentially a very positive opportunity for people to have a unique tourism experience. How will you actually promote this to those licence holders? What is your marketing program? Is this something that your department is putting at the top of its agenda?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you very much for the question. It would be great to see the uptake of this, as it is an important part of getting tourism out into the regions. It is certainly the intent of PIRSA to write to all those 423 licence holders to inform them of the ability to enter this space, including explaining to them how they go through the process of applying if they wish to go into this exciting new area of tourism out in the aquaculture zone.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Just for clarification on that, is there a particular officer who will be responsible? I know this is supposed to be a one-stop shop. If one of those 423 licence holders would like to progress a tourism development, do you have someone who is responsible?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The one-stop shop will be PIRSA's fisheries and aquaculture sector. That will be where they currently have engagement in relation to their aquaculture licence, so it will be the same point of contact going forward if they want to go down the tourism path.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: We talked before about the 12 aquaculture zones. My question is about the impact for aquaculture operators who are not in aquaculture zones. Have you considered extending beyond the zones? What is your thinking around the possibility of including aquaculture development in all aquaculture leases?

I have been in this parliament nearly 10 years, and I know the aquaculture zones have had some people who are very supportive and some people who have been concerned about it. Obviously, the intention here is to take a unique industry that we have here and provide a value-add. It is a not only a value-add that gives a tourism potential but a value-add to employment in some of those regional areas. With the ups and downs of farming, whether it be aquaculture or wheat or barley, this will potentially provide other streams of cash flow into those operations. Now we are going to have two different models: those that are in aquaculture zones and those that are out of aquaculture zones. That is the nature of our concern and our question.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed about 90 per cent of aquaculture is inside the aquaculture zones, so certainly a strong majority is in those zones. The operators outside those zones will not be covered by this process. They can still go down the path of seeking development approval for any works that they might like to do, but they will not be covered by this one-stop shop. These aquaculture zones have had more scrutiny in their set-up originally. It means that they are able to be put through this process, whereas those outside go through a longer process of getting development approval. It will allow some of those other assessments that will not be required here to be followed.

Ms MICHAELS: I refer to clause 4 and new section 58B, which provides that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act does not apply to aquaculture tourism development. You talked about the one-stop shop in PIRSA with the fisheries and aquaculture section. What expertise is there in that section to make planning decisions? Now being the shadow minister, it appears planning laws are incredibly complex, and people making those decisions have years of experience in planning laws. You are now dealing with a development that potentially is sitting in a department that does not have the expertise in planning. Can you explain how that would work?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The process of this is very much that it will be a case management type approach that PIRSA will be conducting. They will not be doing the work that would currently be done by Planning; they will actually be referring it to those people to have it done.

It is about making the point of contact one spot rather than multiple for these organisations so that they can simplify the fact that they are operating in an environment that requires multiple agencies' approvals to go forward. This is about bringing it to one spot where PIRSA will case manage it and get those approvals for them, but it is still going through making sure it meets the requirements of planning.

Ms MICHAELS: How does that work, minister? If it is referring to the planning department for those decisions, yet 58B says that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act actually does not apply, what legislative basis has the planning department for taking any referrals from PIRSA on that?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that currently under the law development approval is not required in an aquaculture zone, and this will be like for like, so it will not need development approval as such through this process. We do need to make sure that the building of structures is adequate. Under 58 it talks about the need for the buildings to be certified to the standards required, so that will be part of the approval process.

Ms MICHAELS: To clarify, does the building approval you say you will refer to the planning department have a legislative basis for even considering that if we have 58B inserted, which specifically says that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act does not apply?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that, even though development approval is not required, it is required that buildings are certified and will be signed off by certifiers for those buildings, so it is very much making sure that the structures are safe and built according to the requirements under the building rules.

Ms MICHAELS: I think I will move on to something else. On the same clause, clause 4, what limits are there on the scale of activities that might be caught under this legislation? How can we be confident that it will not allow for some boutique offshore hotel to be developed and that, if we get a different minister, they would be happy to approve it under this legislation?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I thank the honourable member for her question. The key thing in this space is that it must complement the aquaculture activity being undertaken and that it must be taken wholly and solely within the aquaculture zone. It must be ecologically sustainable, and it is there to enhance the experience of the aquaculture lease itself, not to replace or overburden that aquaculture zone with a structure that is beyond delivering the requirements of aquaculture.

Ms MICHAELS: Can the minister explain, regarding new section 58G, why the requirement for newspaper advertisements is now an option and you could actually just advertise on a website rather than in a newspaper?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed it is the same as what is currently in the Aquaculture Act. It is the same process, that it can be advertised either by newsprint or online.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Looking at new section 58F—Concurrences and consents, it provides:

The power of the minister to grant an aquaculture tourism development authorisation, a tourism lease or a tourism licence in relation to certain land is subject to—

(a) if the land is vested in the minister responsible for the administration of the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993, the requirement under section 15 of that act for the concurrence of that minister; and

(b) if the land is vested in any other entity, the concurrence of that other entity: and

(c) the concurrence of any other entity that may be responsible for the care, control and management of the land.

Given that the minister must concur if the land is vested in the minister for harbours, how does it actually streamline the process? The primary industries minister still has to refer to the EPA and get the concurrence of the minister responsible for the harbours act, who is the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. How does this actually streamline the process if this is still a requirement in this situation?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: The purpose of this bill is to enable people to come to one point to make their application. It does not mean that other bodies get ruled out of the process. They will be part of the process, but the one-stop shop is coming to one point of entry to government to make their application rather than having to go to multiple agencies to progress this. It is about bringing it to one point of contact for these tourism opportunities.

The CHAIR: Given that clause 4 is particularly extensive, I am happy to take further questions, if members have any. If not, we can move on. There is no pressure.

Ms MICHAELS: New section 58I talks about the removal of unauthorised developments. How does the minister see that working in practice? When would that provision be used?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Can you please repeat that?

Ms MICHAELS: Under 58I, the minister can direct a person to remove unauthorised developments. How do you see that working in practice? Can you give an example of what that might involve and who would actually do the removal works if the person failed to do that?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: This mirrors the same thing with aquaculture itself, that if unlicensed aquaculture occurs there is the ability to issue a notice for removal. This is to make sure people do not put structures in there that are not approved, and there is a maximum penalty of $35,000 for people putting in structures that are not to be there. As I said, they can be directed by notice to remove them.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I have a question on 58G relating to public notice. Obviously, one of the key things that this bill does is to set out the process by which you can apply for tourism development on an aquaculture lease. You must give notice and publish it on a website determined by the minister or in the newspaper. Paragraph (b) talks about taking into account 'any submissions received in response to the notice within a period following publication of the notice specified by the Minister'. It is curious to me that it says it 'must be at least 10 business days'. Can you share with the house as to why 10 business days was chosen? It seems to me quite a short period of time, given that people might have concerns about different developments.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that under the Aquaculture Act currently it has no time frame at all. The opinion was that there was a requirement to at least put a minimum of 10 days, which is currently the minimum procedure they operate with under the Aquaculture Act to make sure that there is the opportunity for people to respond. They have just mirrored their current practice in aquaculture in the aquaculture tourism space, with a minimum of 10 business days—two weeks. It can be extended in relation to a more complicated proposal.

The CHAIR: Final question, member for Ramsay.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: My question, then, is: do you think it is adequate to put a notice on a website or in a newspaper, given that some of these developments could be quite substantial? We are talking about up to 30 years, and it could be a hotel or it could be a pontoon. So we are talking about a wide variety of different developments. Do you not think that the right thing to do would be to write to other leaseholders in that area, as we have talked about? There were 12 aquaculture zones and if someone was to put up something in Coffin Bay that is new, rather than just having it on a website or in a newspaper—particularly if it is substantial but even if it is not—is this an adequate amount of information for those other leaseholders?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that, under the current Aquaculture Act and the aquaculture leases approval process, prior to public notice PIRSA's procedure is to make email contact with those leaseholders in the relevant zone. They also make contact with the local council, the Department for Environment and Water, the EPA, the Conservation Council and other relevant bodies in relation to any applications. That is the same process that will be followed going forward to inform those people if there are developments going ahead.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Clause 5 is the amendment of section 59, reference of matters to EPA. The bill allows for referral to the Environment Protection Authority to determine whether an aquaculture tourism development or variation should be approved. It does not seem to me that that is clear about what is the threshold for referral. Obviously, the whole point of this bill is that we streamline and have a one-stop shop, although, as is quite clear, often you have to involve quite a few different departments as well. What will be that threshold for referral? My question within that would be how many of the applications you would expect would reach that threshold.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Currently under the Aquaculture Act, the EPA is required to approve all aquaculture licences, and under this it will be required to do the same. There are provisions in the act that, in consultation with the EPA under regulation, you could set up an exclusion process for particular developments the EPA does not require its approval to be given for, but that would be set up under regulations in consultation with the EPA.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: That did not really give me any clarification at all. What we are trying to ask here is what would be the threshold for referral. Given that you are changing quite significantly how decisions are made around tourism developments in aquaculture licence areas, people are very keen to understand when you will be referring. It might be covered in regulations, but I think it would be interesting for people to understand your intention.

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Just clarifying, the way this is written is that until those exemptions are in place everything is referred. Until we have the exemptions of what the EPA are happy to go through without their approval, everything has to be referred, but it would be envisaged that there will be some consultation with the EPA to work out what they are happy to allow through because they do not see any risk going forward.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: If I were to sum up the concerns of people, they are about not having the EPA as involved as they have been. That is what we have heard. Can you give some examples of circumstances where you think an approval will be not required from the EPA and why?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I guess the key reason for the EPA involvement is to remove the risks of pollution, as a better way of describing it. Therefore, if there is no risk of pollution, whatever that pollution may be, whether it be the management of toilets, contaminants from food or something that may end up going out to the aquaculture lease—to me, those are the things the EPA would want to be involved in.

It is hard to try to think of all the possible options that may not need their involvement. For example, if it is a glass-bottomed facility, so that you are looking at the lease itself and there is no contact with the lease—you literally walk past and you are gone again—that is a very simple unlikely need for EPA involvement because there is no risk of pollution.

Ms MICHAELS: On the classes being approved by the EPA, how long do you think that process will take and how does it tie in with the commencement date of this bill?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: At this point in time, we currently only have two tourism ventures out there that are operating on these leases, so it is very hard to determine what the requirements will be in the development of those regulations. I envisage that those regulations will be developed in time as more and more of these applications come forward and we have some understanding of the different requirements of the EPA and others in this space.

It is very hard to determine a time frame for regulations, and I think they will be adapting to the developments as they come forward. I do not see the development of those regulations holding up the implementation of the bill itself, as they are things that can be changed as more and more knowledge of the different tourism ventures are brought forward.

Ms MICHAELS: So you would need the classes approved by the EPA prior to the commencement of the bill, or do you not have that intention?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: As I said, at this point in time there are only two, so it is hardly worth setting up classes for the structures that are currently before us. But, as we go forward, we are hoping to see growth in this space, so it would be sensible to set up classes going forward.

Ms MICHAELS: Are there are any precedents in any other legislation where there are these sorts of classes that can be used as a guideline for coming up with something beforehand so that people are aware of what to expect in terms of EPA referrals?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that under the Aquaculture Act there are classes of development the EPA do not want to see. For example, just splitting a lease in half, they do not care about that process. That is an example of a class where the EPA are not involved. That is an example of class operations.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: In regard to reviews, in a previous answer to a question, minister, you said that there are regular reviews of the different aquaculture zones, and I think you said the Lower Eyre Peninsula is currently undergoing one at the moment. While those reviews take place and there is a process for that, when people are looking to invest in tourism and have a development there, they obviously are putting everything together, and one of the things that frustrates them is the time line it takes to get the approval to go ahead. I know that is the ambition here with a one-stop shop. What I do not see in here is some clarity. New section 60(1)(e)(i) provides:

(i) a decision of the Minister not to grant an aquaculture tourism development authorisation, a tourism lease or a tourism licence under that Part;

It does not give any indication of how long or when you would have to respond to an applicant. Is it 60 days? Is it 90 days? In these situations, and for those of you who have spoken on this bill, people would often have to have some financing, and they would look to engage builders and construction and potentially even employ people to help assist in the running. How timely will you be in letting people know if it is a green light, or they are unable to go ahead?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Thank you very much for the question. Under the bill, there are some proposals around some of the time frames and earlier we mentioned the 10 business days in relation to public notice. There are some requirements in this on-time time frame, but the intent is that these will be progressed as timely as possible. Under the current aquaculture licence arrangements, depending on how complicated the application is, it depends on the time frames. I am informed that they usually operate on a between six to 12-month approval process for those aquaculture licences.

Ms MICHAELS: On clause 6, the amendment to section 60, is that a review of the decision of the minister by the applicant in terms of basically an appeal to that decision and what body hears that appeal?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: Yes, that is correct: it is the applicant making the appeal, and they can appeal to the South Australian Civil Administration Tribunal.

Ms MICHAELS: Do you have any idea of what costs would be involved in that kind of review for an applicant?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that under the Aquaculture Act it is uncommon to the point that we do not have an understanding of any case that has gone through to this process, so I am not sure of the particular costs in relation to going to the tribunal.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: If I can ask the minister for an answer between the houses. No further questions on clause 6.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: Clause 7 relates to the public register. Where exactly will this public register be and how will it be accessible?

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM: I am informed that the register will be on the PIRSA fishery and aquaculture website. It is an interactive map, where you can put the licence number in and it will zoom to the location of the particular licence that you are interested in.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (8 to 10) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.K.B. BASHAM (Finniss—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (12:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00.

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